nanog mailing list archives
Re: And then there were two
From: Eric Gauthier <eric () roxanne org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:13:19 -0400
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:10:47AM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I am not a quantum physist (among many things I am not) but it would seem that two is too many--the likelyhood that they would always be exactly equal is vanishingly small (Heisingberg might insist it is impossible in principle) and as soon as the become unequal one (both?) disappear.
Ok, can someone tell me if I've fully understood this thread on peering agreements? ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS Um, I mean ... s/ANIMALS/PROVIDERS Eric :)
Current thread:
- And then there were two Sean Donelan (Jun 05)
- Re: And then there were two Sam Thomas (Jun 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: And then there were two Ron Buchalski (Jun 06)
- Re: And then there were two Larry Sheldon (Jun 06)
- Re: And then there were two Eric Gauthier (Jun 06)
- Re: And then there were two Larry Sheldon (Jun 07)
- Re: And then there were two Larry Sheldon (Jun 06)
- Re: And then there were two BrandonButterworth (Jun 06)