nanog mailing list archives
RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
From: Steve Goldstein <sgoldste () nsf gov>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:58:19 -0400
At 9:28 PM -0400 10/22/96, Vadim Antonov wrote:
...I always had nice laughs looking at measurement techniques so prevalent in the respective publications. --vadim From: Peter Ford <peterf () microsoft com> Another pragmatic solution is to call the editors of comm week, network world, data communications and suggest that they might get a lot of mileage writing a story comparing and contrasting the performance of ISPs.
cf: http://www.cnet.com/Content/Reviews/Compare/ISP/ --SG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates], (continued)
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Jon Green (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Jon Green (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Mr. Jeremy Hall (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Marten Terpstra (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Robert Craig (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Steve Goldstein (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Todd Graham Lewis (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Steve Goldstein (Oct 23)