withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
mjr at wacky.eit.com
Wed Jan 15 19:13:06 UTC 1997
Paul A Vixie writes...
> Extra withdrawals was something somebody noticed because they were looking
> for something else. It was amusing, not alarming. Cisco fixed it because
> people (like me) thought it was sloppy and just would not shut up about it.
> Tempest. Teapot. Have none of you got anything more important to discuss?
Did anybody else listen to that CNet Radio bit from the EE Times
article's author? At the end of it, the host said something like,
"So, the REAL problem isn't so much with Cisco routers, but with
Cisco's router users."
Matt Ranney - mjr at ranney.com
This is how I sign all my messages.
More information about the NANOG