nanog mailing list archives
Re: economic value of low AS numbers
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:08:34 -0800
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Keegan Holley wrote:
You are discounting (pun intended) vanity and marketing. I am no longer surprised at what people will be willing to pay (sometimes astonishing amounts of) money for. I suppose I can't argue with that, but anyone technical enough to know what an AS is should know better.
whois -h whois.arin.net 42 :-) (no idea if any money changed hands) Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- economic value of low AS numbers Dave Hart (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Sebastian Spies (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Leo Bicknell (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Dave Hart (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Kevin Loch (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Keegan Holley (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers David Conrad (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Hank Nussbacher (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Keegan Holley (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Richard Irving (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers David Conrad (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Dave Hart (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Daniel Roesen (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Barry Shein (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Jay Ashworth (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Jeffrey Ollie (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Jeffrey Ollie (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Dave Hart (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Keegan Holley (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Robert Bonomi (Nov 17)
- Re: economic value of low AS numbers Jay Ashworth (Nov 17)