24 Jul
2013
24 Jul
'13
5:19 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 24/07/2013 19:02, Neil Johnson wrote:
Great one more OM on board.
Very valid point. Out of the box I can think of a few risks (bandwidth
usage, # of routes announced, BGP flapping, routing loops,
unauthorized announcements, etc) that we need to discuss. This is also
one of the reasons I proposed this as a trial using for example
44.128.0.0/16 and not the whole 44.0.0.0/8.
That's another part of the risk analysis but also a reason why
multiple gateways might be a good idea.
73 de Marc, LX1DUC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=/o2t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----