4 Feb
2011
4 Feb
'11
1:13 p.m.
On 05/02/2011, at 4:06 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
On 2/4/11 3:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Shouldn't 1.1.1.0/24 and other bogons in 1.0.0.0/8 also be included?
Wouldn't that be telling people that it was OK to mis-appropriate 1.1.1.1 or whatever they felt like for their own use. ?
Given that's the address that appears to have been hijacked by cisco for its wifi gear, its a bit later to be attempting to pull that one back from the abyss. Geoff