North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus

  • From: Alex Rubenstein
  • Date: Mon Apr 03 22:07:22 2000 
Interesting you should bring this up.

Because one party -- the originator -- marks an electronic communique as a
confidential communication, does that really require the reciever to keep
it confidential?

Also, it's not hard to see this:


route-server.exodus.net>sho ip bgp 38.0.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 7807819
Paths: (8 available, best #6)
  Not advertised to any peer
  1239 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.3.39)
    209.1.220.107 from 209.1.220.107 (209.1.220.107)
      Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate
      Community: 1239:1110 3967:31337

(anyone else notice the comedy of '31337'?)





On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Paul Ferguson wrote:

> 
> At 09:27 PM 04/03/2000 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> 
> >surprised not to see this mentioned on NANOG
> >
> > >Sent:  Friday, March 31, 2000
> > >To:    Notify
> > >Subject:       Exodus Customer Confidential Communication
> > >
> 
> Gordon,
> 
> Does the word "confidential" elude you?
> 
> - paul
> 
> 
>