nanog mailing list archives
RE: RTBH no_export
From: Michel Py <michel.py () tsisemi com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 03:13:08 +0000
Alejandro Acosta wrote : One more thing, RFC7999 has category Informational
Point well taken. A good thing, IMHO. If I remember correctly, I once opposed this text; not because it was a bad idea (standardizing is sometimes a good idea) but because I found it imprecise enough that it was not achieveing any goal and blurred the definition of what is a RTBH. Michel. TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
Current thread:
- RTBH no_export Roel Parijs (Jan 31)
- Re: RTBH no_export Ćukasz Bromirski (Jan 31)
- Re: RTBH no_export Nick Hilliard (Jan 31)
- Re: RTBH no_export Theodore Baschak (Jan 31)
- Re: RTBH no_export Alejandro Acosta (Jan 31)
- RE: RTBH no_export Michel Py (Jan 31)
- Re: RTBH no_export Alejandro Acosta (Jan 31)
- RE: RTBH no_export Michel Py (Jan 31)