nanog mailing list archives

duh (Re: [NANOG] Re: RE: rfc 1918?)

From: Pim van Riezen <pi () vuurwerk nl>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:08:32 CEST


Pim van Riezen <pi () vuurwerk nl> tapped some keys and produced:

Would routing them to Null0 not be more optimal?


Never mind I'm thinking ass-backwards, must be something in the air.
*Revokes own posting privs*

Pi

-- 
conf t
no ip-directed marketing drivel
^Z
wr mem

Current thread:

Re: rfc 1918?, (continued)
- - - Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
    - RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
    - RE: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
    - Re: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
    - RE: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
    - duh (Re: [NANOG] Re: RE: rfc 1918?) Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
    - RE: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Ariel Biener (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Shawn McMahon (Feb 24)
  - Re: rfc 1918? Andrew Brown (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
    - Re: rfc 1918? Shawn McMahon (Feb 24)

(Thread continues...)