[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Mon Mar 1 18:25:31 CET 2010
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100, Arjan van der Oest said: > > (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of > >running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network > > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... I would not be surprised if some of the bigger providers now have bigger networks in their test labs than the ARPANET/MILNET combo was - ISTR it was on the order of 4,000 total nodes in the 1984 era. I remember being surprised when my then-current employer joined both networks that the 3,000+ nodes on Bitnet and the size of the Arpa/Mil aggregate being comparable (and Bitnet may have been even bigger at some points). And let's face it - the Arpa/Milnet was a test network, not a production network. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20100301/aa476489/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]