nanog mailing list archives
Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones
From: "David Howe" <DaveHowe () gmx co uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 02:01:39 +0100
"David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com> wrote
You mean one packet traverses *TWO* networks, don't you?
probably - but you will still charge on this scheme if both sender and recipient are your customers, won't you?
Current thread:
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones, (continued)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Christopher Johnston (Jun 13)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Marshall Eubanks (Jun 13)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones John Olp (Jun 14)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 14)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones John Olp (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones John Olp (Jun 15)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Christopher Johnston (Jun 13)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Steve Schaefer (Jun 15)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Charlap (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 15)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Howe (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 15)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Joshua Goodall (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Tim Winders (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Joshua Goodall (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Tim Winders (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Michael Whisenant (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Eric Gauthier (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Michael Whisenant (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Masataka Ohta (Jun 10)