[139425] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Thu Apr 7 18:58:40 2011
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:56:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <19358.1302204953@localhost>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
> > Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
> >
> > That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is
> > funny
> > that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the
> > contrary.
>
> Yes, but I bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now. rfc6214 gives us
> a new brown M&M to put into the contracts...
I wonder what NYC paramedic David Roth would think, to find out that
he'd coined a bit of technical jargon, quite by accident.
Cheers,
-- jra
