nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:12:09 +0530
Well, at least she's here rather than sprinkling eggnog and brandy flavoured pixie dust on our gear over the Christmas break. --srs
On 25-Dec-2015, at 9:08 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote: Yes… Isn’t it impressive just how persistent the bad idea fairy can be? Owen
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake, (continued)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Clayton Zekelman (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Hugo Slabbert (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake TR Shaw (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Andrew Kirch (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Jared Mauch (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Hugo Slabbert (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Nick Hilliard (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Stephen Satchell (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)