Re: OT: billing multicast makes it a non-starter Re: Clarification on Multicast

From: Ron da Silva (ron@aol.net)
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 08:56:37 EST

Next message: Kastenholz, Frank: "Re: Additional comments on draft-rrg-kastenholz-req-04.txt"
Previous message: Dorian Kim: "Re: OT: billing multicast makes it a non-starter Re: Clarification on Multicast"
In reply to: Dorian Kim: "Re: OT: billing multicast makes it a non-starter Re: Clarification on Multicast"
Next in thread: Michael Richardson: "Re: OT: billing multicast makes it a non-starter Re: Clarification on Multicast"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:25:51AM -0500, Dorian Kim wrote:
> ...accurate to say that the infrastructure problem for multicast now is mostly
> a last mile problem...

thus, chickens (or easter rabbits) and eggs...

-ron

Next message: Kastenholz, Frank: "Re: Additional comments on draft-rrg-kastenholz-req-04.txt"
Previous message: Dorian Kim: "Re: OT: billing multicast makes it a non-starter Re: Clarification on Multicast"
In reply to: Dorian Kim: "Re: OT: billing multicast makes it a non-starter Re: Clarification on Multicast"
Next in thread: Michael Richardson: "Re: OT: billing multicast makes it a non-starter Re: Clarification on Multicast"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT