nanog mailing list archives
Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 15:31:52 -0400
I forgot to include my original smiley. ;-) - paul At 11:48 AM 10/14/96 -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
Another suggestion? Lacking one, one might suggest that the complexity of the 'mesh' needs to be simplified. - paulPaul, It's that sloppy multiprovider model. Let's go back to one NSFNET core. :-) Curtis ps- For the *extremely* humor impaired -- I'm just joking. I'm not seriously suggesting that. I am suggesting to Paul through (friendly) sarcasm that we have to live with routing complexity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II, (continued)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II Vadim Antonov (Oct 11)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II Paul Ferguson (Oct 12)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II Bill Manning (Oct 12)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II John G. Scudder (Oct 12)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II bmanning (Oct 14)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II John G. Scudder (Oct 14)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II Havard . Eidnes (Oct 14)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II Curtis Villamizar (Oct 14)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II Paul Ferguson (Oct 12)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II William Allen Simpson (Oct 13)
- Re: Intra/Inter - was Inet-II Paul Ferguson (Oct 14)