too many routes

Sean M. Doran smd at
Fri Sep 12 04:15:20 UTC 1997

"Kent W. England" <kwe at> writes:

> But you didn't actually do it then.

Ok, true.

> And the reason they started noticing it later was because 
> only then did you actually implement the filters, without 
> further notice, instead of much earlier. The surprise was 
> due to the fact that you did it without further notice 
> and not the fact that you did it.

Hey, people should take notes when I rant.

However you're right and as I said a long time ago it
probably would have been helpful to try to coordinate
things a little better.

On the other hand, the unilateral action completely
eliminated any argument that there was collusion between
Sprint, MCI and the rest, which maybe was a good thing at
the time.

That people still yell about this is sort-of funny.
Do you think people would be screaming less about
allocation policies if I had been doing a count-down
between the final warning and the actual implementation?
(That's an actual question with obvious future operational
impact rather than a rhetorical point.  Really.)


More information about the NANOG mailing list