nanog mailing list archives
Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 02:43:12 -0400
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:46:49 EDT, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> said:
Everyone running their cable wherever they want with no controls, and abandoning it all in place makes a huge mess, and is one way to think about it.
While clearing out the space that eventually ended up being repurposed for a supercomputer, we encountered a small run of Ethernet Classic - the thickwire stuff. We never did figure out how or why it got there (I doubt that anybody stashed it down there just for storage stretched straight out, with 3 vampire taps still attached), as the location in question was still cow pasture when we decided that all new cable would be thinwire (and we certainly had plenty of THAT under the floor, buried under all the cat-5...) And we're a small enough shop with low enough personnel turnover that rounding up *all* the possible co-conspirators and getting somebody to admit "Ahh... now there's a story attached to that wire..." usually doesn't take more than 3 or 4 pitchers of Guinness... ;) Which almost begs the question - what's the oddest "WTF??" anybody's willing to admit finding under a raised floor, or up in a ceiling or cable chase or similar location? (Feel free to change names to protect the guilty if need be....:)
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?], (continued)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick W Gilmore (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Leo Bicknell (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 06)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Mark Borchers (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Ian Dickinson (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Scott McGrath (Jul 09)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick Muldoon (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Tom (UnitedLayer) (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] John Ferriby (Jul 08)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 08)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Stephen Stuart (Jul 06)