Interesting points, and although orthogonal to the analysis in Do
ATM-based Internet Exchange Points Make Sense Anymore?, I am including
these in the appendix to show these alternate views of the world. Am I
missing any of the major (fact-based) views?
There is this small thing that higher
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, JC Dill wrote:
On 04:36 PM 8/30/02, John M. Brown wrote:
Jason at XO's security/abuse staff. Very helpful chap
Indeed he is. Which is why I'm totally mystified about why rfc-ignorant
insists that my domain doesn't have a working abuse address. I would
Strange, from my network I see you via GT and via Telus but not via ATT
From me (as11647)
BGP routing table entry for 216.223.192.0/19
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
852 174 8001 4276
209.115.141.1 from 209.115.141.1
I'm not receiving that network at all.
I looked at our border to sprint, genuity, cw, PSI, and our AADS peers.
Sorry to not be of more assistance.
-Chris
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:14 AM
To: Gerald
Cc: [EMAIL
Hi,
FYI,
I'm currently sitting as customer to 5511, and I see your two mentioned
addresses behind ATT (NY peering FT-ATT), NAC.
mh
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]De la part de
Gerald
Envoye : samedi 31 aout 2002 16:55
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet
In the last few days, it's been advertised, but often
withdrawn. Perhaps the timing of the announces and
withdrawls will help you:
MIT saw it advertised via 1 701 8001 4276:
http://bgp.lcs.mit.edu/bgpview.cgi?time=dayprefix=216.223.192.0%2F19rel=eqtable=updatesaction=list
PSG (Randy Bush's
