|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:06:54PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > 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? And I found that forward very interesting, as we did not get that info and its very valuable for us to know. > > 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 > > > > > > > -- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-769-2936 Alameda Networks, Inc. | http://www.Alameda.net | Fax#: 510-521-5073
|