nanog mailing list archives
Re: economic value of low AS numbers
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () efes iucc ac il>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:26:31 +0200
At 10:21 17/11/2011 -0800, David Conrad wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Keegan Holley wrote: > Besides standing at the water cooler at 1:23PM on 12/3 telling AS123 jokes > I'm not sure a particular AS number has any relevance or any monetary value > unless there is scarcity.You are discounting (pun intended) vanity and marketing. I am no longer surprised at what people will be willing to pay (sometimes astonishing amounts of) money for.
AS-envy. -Hank
Current thread:
- economic value of low AS numbers Dave Hart (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Sebastian Spies (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Leo Bicknell (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Dave Hart (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Kevin Loch (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Keegan Holley (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers David Conrad (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Hank Nussbacher (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Keegan Holley (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Richard Irving (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers David Conrad (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Dave Hart (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Daniel Roesen (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Barry Shein (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Jay Ashworth (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Jeffrey Ollie (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Jeffrey Ollie (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Keegan Holley (Nov 17)