On Fri, 16 May 2008, Colin Alston wrote:
> On 16/05/2008 20:15 Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
>> My guess is that they don't want to be tied to only announcing a
>> single /13. Each of those organizations is bigger than a lot of
>> service providers out there...
>
> Since when do you have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You certainly don't have to. However, as other folks have indicated
here, that is the way that some folks read it. My guess is that this
was purely for network topology and administrative reasons.
Chris
On 16 May 2008, at 12.51, Colin A
On 16/05/2008 20:15 Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
> My guess is that they don't want to be tied to only announcing a
> single /13. Each of those organizations is bigger than a lot of
> service providers out there...
Since when do you have to announce only the same size prefix as your
Please keep the political rhetoric off-list, thanks.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As everybody is a big fan of securing their networks against foreign
> attacks, be aware that the US DoD has been assigned 14 /22's, IPv6 that
> is, not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
Not to address the political issues here (which are deep, wide, and
WAY too much of a black-hole), remember, that the DoD is not a single
organization from a networking perspective. There are a number of
different organizatio
Perhaps it is an attempt to make their address space so sparsely populated
that it's close to impossible to find a host without knowing it's address in
the first place?
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As everybody is a big fan of securing
Hi folks,
As everybody is a big fan of securing their networks against foreign
attacks, be aware that the US DoD has been assigned 14 /22's, IPv6 that
is, not IPv4, they all come from a single IPv6 /13 though, which is what
they apparently asked for in the beginning, at least that was the rumor,
w
7 matches
Mail list logo
