Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?
Hank Nussbacher
hank at interall.co.il
Sun Mar 21 05:44:47 UTC 2021
On 20/03/2021 21:34, Stan Barber wrote:
+1
-Hank
> +1 from the peanut gallery
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:30 PM Allen Kitchen
> <allenmckinleykitchen at gmail.com <mailto:allenmckinleykitchen at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Randy Bush <randy at psg.com
> <mailto:randy at psg.com>> wrote:
>
> i do not find the volume or diversity on the nanog list problematic.
> in fact, i suspect its diversity and openness are major factors in
> it being the de facto global anything-ops list. perhaps we do not
> need to fix that.
>
> randy
>
>
> +1 (or as much more as I can be credited for)
>
> ..Allen
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list