nanog mailing list archives
Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:29:20 +0000
On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:19, Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie () gmail com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 17:55, Greg Chalmers <gchalmers () gmail com> wrote:Isn't this journalism a bit yellow? No facts / based on speculation.. - GregNow all they need to do is link back to this NANOG thread as a source.
That would be very irresponsible. Otoh, if someone updated the tier1 network page on Wikipedia first... Nick
Current thread:
- did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? John van Oppen (Mar 06)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Jim Cowie (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Greg Chalmers (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Darius Jahandarie (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Nick Hilliard (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Jim Cowie (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Michael Sinatra (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Eric (Mar 08)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Greg Chalmers (Mar 07)
- Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer? Jim Cowie (Mar 07)
