<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Trusted Networks in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21013678</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:17:02 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:17:02 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Trusted Networks</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013707</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/552990"><b>insomniac84</b></A> : Of course governments will.  Granted, in America it's easier just to ask.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013707</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:23:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Trusted Networks</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013678</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1024146"><b>fcisler</b></A> : Wouldn't you have to be somewhere INSIDE a DC? More specifically, within a trusted route/network? I'd find it an extremely bad practice to accept any BGP routes that I didn't trust....<br><br>Don't most ISP's filter BGP before it reaches a client's subnet? Unless they are accepting BGP routes from a client, why not block them? seems rather simple....<br><br>This seems like it <i>could</i> be a bigger hole - but unlike DNS, I would venture to say that 75% of most hosts wouldn't have the connectivity to do this.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21013678</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:14:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
