This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
The Cidr Report
- Previous message (by thread): The Cidr Report
- Next message (by thread): The Cidr Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Geoff Huston
cidr-report at potaroo.net
Sun Nov 14 01:35:15 CET 2004
Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is: If we had a way to announce two things 1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad AND 2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes then we would not be seeing this unfortunate case of unauthorized route leakage being resolved in a way that seems to have unfortunate bgp implications in terms of more specifics appearing. So its an interesting question. How could Covad achieve a routing policy announcement of the form as stated in 2 above? regards, Geoff
- Previous message (by thread): The Cidr Report
- Next message (by thread): The Cidr Report
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]