darrinw at nixc.net
Thu Apr 5 02:33:31 UTC 2001
|+ Did I say I didn't believe it? I said I didn't realize he worked for
|+ exodus. Had I known that, I wouldn't have suggested that if he filters
|+ _701_ from his other connections, he would lose 701 connectivity in the
|+ event that his 701 connection went down.
Are we done trying to show off our regex skills?
|+ There is nothing wrong on my side. We're not a direct peer of 701. I
|+ never said I did. I do have paths into 701 however. You didn't specify
|+ direct 701_13944.
Maybe you the one who does not understand the English language
very well. Let me show you the original question I asked:
|$ So, you were under the belief that a rather large service
|$ provider, only had one connection to UUNet? How many paths do you,
|$ yourself have into UU? Are they anything > DS3?
|+ As for paths into 701, we three. All of them > DS3.
Caught in a lie, and trying to cover our ass now? Did not think people
would remember what was posted, less than an hour ago? How stupid do you
take us for?
I think we can end this thread now. As you can see, you are just making
yourself look worse, than you already do.
darrin walton, darrinw at nixc.net
More information about the NANOG