nanog mailing list archives
Re: Fw: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...."
From: "Edward S. Marshall" <emarshal () logic net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:49:14 -0600 (CST)
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, JIM FLEMING wrote:
If Karl[1] were here, he would probably refer to that as a NotWork, as opposed to a NetWork. [1] - http://www.denninger.net/
Why doesn't it surprise me that Jim mentions Karl to make a point? *plonk* (Hopefully he'll stay filtered this time...) -- Edward S. Marshall <emarshal () logic net> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
Current thread:
- Fw: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
- Message not available
- Re: Fw: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 21)
- Re: Fw: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Steve Rubin (Nov 21)
- Re: Fw: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Edward S. Marshall (Nov 21)
- Re: Fw: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 21)
- Message not available