nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint peering policy
From: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa () samurai sfo dead-dog com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:48:20 -0700
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 Mike Leber (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Joseph T. Klein (Jun 29)
- 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)