Gert Doering wrote: > The *absence* of the route is a very strong indicator that no other > services than directly peering-related are sitting on that network, no?
or that the holder is squatting the space, or that it's being used for connectivity which is unrelated to the standard DFZ (e.g. l3vpn p2p addressing), or that it's just not being used at that time, or... By all means, the RIPE NCC should flag things as a problem if it sees server farms configured on an assigned ixp range, or sees traceroutes ending up in residential customer, or whatever, but the presence or absence of a prefix in the dfz, per se, does not mean anything. Nick
