nanog mailing list archives
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
From: Bevan Slattery <bevan () slattery net au>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:37:45 +1000
Yes Scott. It was on topic and genuine in the approach, but understand the nuances around it. I did declare the interest in the second email when a more detailed explainer was included with a request to take it offline. That felt like I was stepping over the mark for the sake of pointing out the technical differences between peeringdb and XXXXXXXXXX hence the declaration and wanting to take it off line to not fill people's in-boxes. That leads back to the first point to of doing it in the first place to avoid this. Apologies. Cheers [b]
On 13 Jul 2016, at 6:23 AM, Scott Weeks <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote: ------------------------------------------Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing yourfabric/IX on XXXXX www.xxxxxx.com . ------------------------------------------ https://www.nanog.org/list "5.Product marketing is prohibited" It appears from a web search that you are affiliated with the company you're speaking about. scott
Current thread:
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC, (continued)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC James Bensley (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC Bevan Slattery (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC Niels Bakker (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC Mark Tinka (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC James Bensley (Jul 13)
- RE: IX in Iran by TIC Chuck Church (Jul 13)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC Bevan Slattery (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC James Bensley (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC Bevan Slattery (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC James Bensley (Jul 13)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC Brandon Ross (Jul 12)
- Re: IX in Iran by TIC Bevan Slattery (Jul 12)