[190626] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IX in Iran by TIC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bevan Slattery)
Tue Jul 12 17:37:54 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Bevan Slattery <bevan@slattery.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <20160712132342.7611C0EB@m0087791.ppops.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:37:45 +1000
To: surfer@mauigateway.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Yes Scott. It was on topic and genuine in the approach, but understand the n=
uances around it. I did declare the interest in the second email when a mor=
e detailed explainer was included with a request to take it offline. That f=
elt like I was stepping over the mark for the sake of pointing out the techn=
ical differences between peeringdb and XXXXXXXXXX hence the declaration and w=
anting to take it off line to not fill people's in-boxes.
That leads back to the first point to of doing it in the first place to avoi=
d this. Apologies.
Cheers
[b]
> On 13 Jul 2016, at 6:23 AM, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------------------
>> Might be worthwhile to also look at throwing your
> fabric/IX on XXXXX www.xxxxxx.com . =20
> ------------------------------------------
>=20
> https://www.nanog.org/list
>=20
> "5.Product marketing is prohibited"
>=20
> It appears from a web search that you are affiliated=20
> with the company you're speaking about.
>=20
> scott
