nanog mailing list archives
RE: NANOG 24: NAP BoF
From: Patrick Evans <pre () PRE ORG>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:23:21 +0000 (GMT)
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, James Smith wrote:
Maybe if we classed them by aggregate provisioned bandwidth, with a secondary classification that ranks number of peers at the point...
Hrm. Does that mean I can put a Black Diamond or M160 in a rack and declare myself a Tier 0 NAP/IXP? What a silly argument this is :) -- Patrick Evans - teasing the gatso since 1993 free from the clutches of the law since 8/1/2002 pre () pre org | www.pre.org | ZXR400L9 | Gibson SG
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF, (continued)
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF bmanning (Jan 29)
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Randy Bush (Jan 29)
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Randy Bush (Jan 29)
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Bill Woodcock (Jan 29)
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Alan Hannan (Jan 29)
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Randy Bush (Jan 29)
- Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Steve Schaefer (Jan 29)
- RE: NANOG 24: NAP BoF David Luyer (Jan 30)
- RE: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Mark Prior (Jan 30)
- RE: NANOG 24: NAP BoF Patrick Evans (Jan 30)