nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe () 6SigmaNets com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:30:39 -0700
At 05:34 PM 22-10-96 -0400, John Curran wrote:
One can certainly make the argument that running large traffic flows through shared interconnects is bad engineering
Yes, and I think the operative word is "shared" as in "shared access media". --Kent ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe () 6SigmaNets com Experienced Internet Consulting ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates, (continued)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Jessica Yu (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Rod Nayfield (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Robert Laughlin (Oct 23)
- RE: Ungodly packet loss rates Chris A. Icide (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Sean Donelan (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates John Curran (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Curtis Villamizar (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates John Curran (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Paul Ferguson (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Jonathan Heiliger (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Kent W. England (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tony Li (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Darin Wayrynen (Oct 24)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tony Li (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Kent W. England (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tim Salo (Oct 24)