nanog mailing list archives
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:18:07 -0500
On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
That and building out separate and unequal networks pretty much sucks?
It does create job preservation in old-school telcos, like T. - Jared
Current thread:
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic, (continued)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Nick Hilliard (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic TJ (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Greco (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Jared Mauch (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Andy Davidson (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Joe Provo (Dec 30)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Tomas L. Byrnes (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic David Conrad (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Michael Thomas (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Jared Mauch (Dec 29)
- RE: ip-precedence for management traffic Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Dorn Hetzel (Dec 29)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Paul Ferguson (Dec 31)
- Re: ip-precedence for management traffic Michael Thomas (Dec 30)