[cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED], maybe now it will get their
attention instead of going into /dev/null]
This is an odd thing to do because you don't say
what action you would like ARIN to take.
What do you think ARIN should do?
ASHandle: AS4474
Comment:The information for this ASN has been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jordan Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who are you to start publicly trying to deeper people? Nlayer has a
great noc, I am a customer, and know many more. They are currently
migrating from 4474 to 4436 due to the asn issue, and its not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED], maybe now it will get their
attention instead of going into /dev/null]
This is an odd thing to do because you don't say
what action you would like ARIN to take.
What do you think ARIN should
Before you started a rant on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about this inconsistent-as
problem on an inet6 route, did you think about posting a polite,
Please, someone from nlayer, contact me off-list, message; or how
about an email to the inet6 carrier(s) from which you learnt the routes?
It seems to me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Before you started a rant on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about this
inconsistent-as problem on an inet6 route, did you think about posting a polite,
Please, someone from nlayer, contact me off-list, message; or how
about an email to
Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as
far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even
included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block such as
204.139.8.0/21, 204.147.224.0/20 and others certainly seem to confirm that.
As
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:52 AM -0800 william(at)elan.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as
far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even
included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being
announced by more than one ASN. Per the original subject, this seemed to be your
gripe.
however, the thread has devolved into someone using network resources w/o
registration...
which is different.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no
problem with a prefix being
announced by more than one ASN.
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474.
Trying to contact these
On 16 Mar 2004, at 12:03, bill wrote:
there is no problem with a prefix being
announced by more than one ASN.
I am fairly sure that I have seen real-life issues with at least one
vendor's BGP implementation which led a valid route object with one
origin to be masked by another valid route
On 16 Mar 2004, at 12:03, bill wrote:
there is no problem with a prefix being
announced by more than one ASN.
Bill: have you done any measurement exercises to determine whether this
is, in fact, an issue? Or was your comment above based on the protocol,
rather than deployed
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:03:21AM -0800, bill wrote:
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a
prefix being announced by more than one ASN. Per the original subject,
this seemed to be your gripe.
Using local-as to migrate sessions individually results in the
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474.
Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening
and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I
tried to find the contacts which lead to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474.
Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474.
Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is
15 matches
Mail list logo