nanog mailing list archives
Re: inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion)
From: "dave o'leary" <doleary () juniper net>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 05:21:00 -0800
At 11:10 AM 2/1/00 -0800, Sean Donelan wrote: On Tue, 01 February 2000, Bill Woodcock wrote: > I agree entirely. I can't stand it when people are too sheepish to > publish Best Common Practices just because there are a few companies that > don't feel like putting in the effort to do a halfway decent job. God > knows we wouldn't want anyone to feel left out, even if they do insist on > running open relays, or redistributing their IGP or whatever. Bleah. Indeed. I did not mean to suggest that such a thing (BCP) shouldn't be done, but rather set expectations that some may try to create a perception of participation while continually dragging feet, objecting to minor points, etc. to slow progress. So, press on, I look forward to seeing progress in this area. thanks, dave
Current thread:
- Re: inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion) Bill Woodcock (Feb 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion) Howard C. Berkowitz (Feb 01)
- Re: inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion) Howard C. Berkowitz (Feb 01)
- Re: inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion) Sean Donelan (Feb 01)
- Re: inter-NOC communications (was:Re: Definition of Congestion) dave o'leary (Feb 03)