nanog mailing list archives
Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?
From: Eric <eric () roxanne org>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:02:48 -0500
+1 - Eric On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael () rancid berkeley edu> wrote:
On 03/07/12 16:10, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:On Mar 7, 2012, at 19:06 , Jim Cowie wrote:As a meta-comment: this "Quick Look" style of blog is an experiment we're trying, based on feedback that the community wanted to hear about more of these little events as they happen. In a Quick Look, we're giving the facts as they are known from initial measurement, and a very quick summary of our preliminary analysis of the incident. Then we throw the topic open to comments from those who might have the clues to the rest of the story ...Well, this member of the community appreciates it.+1 I find the combination of facts and inferences presented to be interesting and useful. michael
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)