nanog mailing list archives
RE: Low AS - Number
From: Eric Kuhnke <eric () fnordsystems com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:11:35 -0700
The US Army Aberdeen Proving Ground controls ASN 666. Coincidence? I think not! :) At 12:10 PM 4/21/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Dwight Ringdahl wrote:Nope strictly for marketing reasons... ASN has almost no place in BGP selection.Dang Geek Pride! (Still MH94 and 3901 after all these years..) It's worse than hanging around Ham radio guys with 4 digit call signs... .. Next we'll get into .. "I booted off of paper tape.." and then.. "I booted off of flip switches".. but I'm one of the few that have strung ferrites on a loom.. Martha.. get me my cane.. ------- And to get completely off topic.. Why/how would you use an ASN for marketing purposes? And should this even be considered.. except as a tongue in cheek geek thing?
Current thread:
- Re: Re[2]: Low AS - Number, (continued)
- Re: Re[2]: Low AS - Number Bruce Campbell (Apr 22)
- Re: Re[2]: Low AS - Number Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- Re: Re[2]: Low AS - Number Peter Galbavy (Apr 24)
- Cogent Problems? Brian Boles (Apr 24)
- Re: Cogent Problems? Basil Kruglov (Apr 24)
- Re: Cogent Problems? Brian Boles (Apr 24)
- Re: Cogent Problems? Brian S. Adelson (Apr 24)
- Re: Cogent Problems? Basil Kruglov (Apr 24)
- Re: Cogent Problems? Basil Kruglov (Apr 24)
- Re: Cogent Problems? Martin hepworth (Apr 24)
- Message not available
- RE: Low AS - Number Eric Kuhnke (Apr 21)
- Re: Low AS - Number Jared Mauch (Apr 21)
- Re: Low AS - Number John Palmer (NANOG Acct) (Apr 21)
- Re: Low AS - Number Roland Verlander (Apr 21)
- Re: Low AS - Number Joel Jaeggli (Apr 21)