[address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Tue Oct 24 12:56:23 CEST 2017
Gert Doering wrote: > The *absence* of the route is a very strong indicator that no other > services than directly peering-related are sitting on that network, no? or that the holder is squatting the space, or that it's being used for connectivity which is unrelated to the standard DFZ (e.g. l3vpn p2p addressing), or that it's just not being used at that time, or... By all means, the RIPE NCC should flag things as a problem if it sees server farms configured on an assigned ixp range, or sees traceroutes ending up in residential customer, or whatever, but the presence or absence of a prefix in the dfz, per se, does not mean anything. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP peering lan reachability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]