[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection
- Subject: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection
- From: aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com (Aftab Siddiqui)
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:29:57 +0500
- In-reply-to: <CAJ0+aXYE+Fo7ybk7=BsDjZkW2VG8knwK9ozySQwicHsxmijb2A@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAJ0+aXah=Ad4Jd8-fCGdottWiBKuO0cprYA-JKrTNeKbNpG79Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGUtwARTVrZrkcx53z_3L0dokB-mDgBFp88u8Y-ztGs0rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK__KzuyVETkpu_ty6qKngyENpz01mjoi6-sXyzWLqp-dV5X_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ0+aXYE+Fo7ybk7=BsDjZkW2VG8knwK9ozySQwicHsxmijb2A@mail.gmail.com>
The thing to acknowledge is that you've realized it otherwise if you follow
the CIDR report than you will find bunch of arrogant folks/SPs not willing
to understand the dilemma they are causing through de-aggregation.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Anurag Bhatia <me at anuragbhatia.com> wrote:
> I didn't realized the routing table size problem with /24's. Stupid me.
>
>
>
> Thanks everyone for updates. Appreciate good answers.
>
>