[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue May 15 19:46:12 CEST 2007
Paul Vixie wrote: >>I am prepared to start listening again as soon as the "Gain"-figures in the >>CIDR report start to change dramatically: >> >> --- 11May07 --- >>ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description >>Table 217147 140280 76867 35.4% All ASes > > > i pretty much hate TE routes. companies who build their business plans on > TE routes are, as randy bush once called it, just grazing in the commons. > > but apparently nobody filters on prefix length any more. that surprises me. Surprised, not really... I simply take it as living proof that almost nobody really cares about seeing some (50..)70K+ routes more or less in their boxes, these days. Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]