nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint peering policy
From: "Mitchell, Dan" <Dan.Mitchell () hosting com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:57:07 -0400
RE: Majdi -- I just wanted to thoroughly address Alex's question. Besides, Allegiance *has* to make it, because I certainly can't go get a job at WCom anymore, can I? :-) dem -----Original Message----- From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa () samurai sfo dead-dog com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:48 PM To: Mitchell, Dan Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:34:42PM -0400, Mitchell, Dan wrote:
a strong management team (after all, they *did* build MFS)
^ `- I think you have mistaken this for an endorsement. And in the age of cooked books, stated revenue can be misleading, particularly when it looks too good to be true. I would be very wary of anyone in this business right now, particularly a CLEC. Regardless, I don't think shameless corporate plugs really belong on NANOG, but I'll allow that perhaps I am in the minority. --msa
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint peering policy, (continued)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jun 29)
- Message not available
- Re: Sprint peering policy ren (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 29)
- Message not available
- Re: Sprint peering policy Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Majdi S. Abbas (Jun 26)
- RE: Sprint peering policy alex (Jun 26)