nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Cidr Report
From: Philip Smith <pfs () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:53:57 +1000
Yes, it was an old message which got resent for some reason when the box restarted.
The workstation is back on line, and the Friday report should reappear as normal. Last night's run worked just fine, with the results on the CIDR Report webpage http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html
Thanks to everyone who let us know there was a problem... :-) philip -- At 11:57 15/01/2002 -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 09:21:07AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Tony Bates wrote: > > Something wrong here. Today is not May 25 and we *never* see a drop of 3K > prefixes. -Hank The mail was delayed for about 10 months (on lovefm.cisco.com, looks like). Either that, or the dates in the received headers are wrong, and various cisco machines have consistently wacky ideas about what the current date is. > > This is an auto-generated mail on Fri May 25 23:00:00 PDT 2001 > > It is not checked before it leaves my workstation.However, hopefully > > you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look > > through this to see if you can improve theamount of aggregation you > > perform. Joe
Current thread:
- The Cidr Report CIDR Report (Jan 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- The Cidr Report Tony Bates (Jan 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Hank Nussbacher (Jan 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Joe Abley (Jan 15)
- Re: The Cidr Report Philip Smith (Jan 16)
- Re: The Cidr Report Hank Nussbacher (Jan 14)
- The Cidr Report CIDR Report (Jan 18)
- The Cidr Report CIDR Report (Jan 25)