doubtful jon... they are just practicing that crazy voodoo called "SmartRouting"(tm). doubtful that they wont have other paths to the Mighty UU. Wow, lookey here! They have multiple paths! 4:59pm troy@unagi ~ > host -l customer.alter.net | grep exodus exodus-tco2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.186 peoexodus.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.147.206 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 137.39.133.162 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.37.78 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.46 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.50 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.54 exodus-lax4-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.190 exodus-dca8-oc12-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.60.90 exodus-ewr1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.226 exodus-sea1-oc3.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.186 exodus-chi6-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.194 exodus-bos1-oc3.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.202 exodus-tco1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.182 exodus-tco1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.182 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.218 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.202 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.206 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.210 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.214
That's strange. Your 701 connection goes down and you've filtered any backup route you had into them. Good thinking.
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
================================================ thus speaks the Maven of Madness, the Hierophant of Hate, the Minister of Malice, the Rabbi of Rage, the Apothecary of Angst, the Oracle of Outrage, the Vizier of Vituperation, the Archon of Anger... you get the drift. http://www.clownhammer.org
As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment. Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about his having multiple paths into UU. Please forgive me for assuming. I also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 troy@clownhammer.org wrote:
doubtful jon... they are just practicing that crazy voodoo called "SmartRouting"(tm). doubtful that they wont have other paths to the Mighty UU. Wow, lookey here! They have multiple paths!
4:59pm troy@unagi ~ > host -l customer.alter.net | grep exodus exodus-tco2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.186 peoexodus.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.147.206 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 137.39.133.162 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.37.78 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.46 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.50 exodus-gw.customer.alter.net has address 146.188.38.54 exodus-lax4-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.190 exodus-dca8-oc12-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.60.90 exodus-ewr1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.226 exodus-sea1-oc3.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.186 exodus-chi6-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.194 exodus-bos1-oc3.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.202 exodus-tco1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.15.182 exodus-tco1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.182 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.218 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.202 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.206 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.210 exodus-sjc2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.12.214
That's strange. Your 701 connection goes down and you've filtered any backup route you had into them. Good thinking.
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
================================================ thus speaks the Maven of Madness, the Hierophant of Hate, the Minister of Malice, the Rabbi of Rage, the Apothecary of Angst, the Oracle of Outrage, the Vizier of Vituperation, the Archon of Anger... you get the drift.
Most of us are speaking as ourselves and not representing our employers, so there's really no reason to post from our work email address, or even discuss where we work. I myself can talk a lot more freely about general things from here then I ever could from my work account, without worry of repercussions because I was "representing" my company publically in a bad way. :) If you want to know who people are, just search for their name on the NANOG or RIPE registration sheets for recent meetings, that generally helps me some (although some people don't even put the company they work for in there). Also, sometimes I just traceroute the host they are posting from.. :) On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 07:43:37PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment.
Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about his having multiple paths into UU. Please forgive me for assuming. I also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Steven Noble / Network Janitor / Be free my soul and leave this world alone : : My views = My views != The views of any of my past or present employers : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|+ |+ As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting |+ from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment. I didn't know that we were required to post from our "work" email address, or that we had to share with _you_ where we worked. A lot of us don't feel like subscribing to _any_ mailing list with our work email, as we already get enough mail there (I can't speak for you though). Do you purpose that everyone now send a email to the list, stating who they are, where they work at, and what they do? I think not. |+ Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about |+ his having multiple paths into UU. Please forgive me for assuming. I |+ also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table. So, you were under the belief that a rather large service provider, only had one connection to UUNet? How many paths do you, yourself have into UU? Are they anything > DS3? -- darrin walton, darrinw@nixc.net
* Darrin Walton <darrinw@nixc.net> [20010404 17:13]:
|+ Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about |+ his having multiple paths into UU. Please forgive me for assuming. I |+ also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table.
So, you were under the belief that a rather large service provider, only had one connection to UUNet? How many paths do you, yourself have into UU? Are they anything > DS3?
Oh, he's got lots of paths to UU...he works for AS701 [1]. :-) [1] I actually have no idea who he works for. ---- Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN] - jrichard @ { geekresearch.com, cubicle.net } Geek Research LLC - <URL:http://www.geekresearch.com/> - IP Network Engineering I am available for contract on IP/ISP/telco related projects! [see URL]
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Darrin Walton wrote:
|+ |+ As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting |+ from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment.
I didn't know that we were required to post from our "work" email address, or that we had to share with _you_ where we worked. A lot of us don't feel like subscribing to _any_ mailing list with our work email, as we already get enough mail there (I can't speak for you though).
Did I say anything about requirements or anyone sharing employment history with me? I simply restated a previous observation which is that many list participants post from someplace other than their work email address. I got bombarded with emails from people because they ASSUMED that I knew someone worked for 3967. I didn't.
Do you purpose that everyone now send a email to the list, stating who they are, where they work at, and what they do? I think not.
I propose that you treat me in the manner in which you expect to be treated. That is all I propose. The last time I checked, it wasn't me who pissed in your cereal.
|+ Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about |+ his having multiple paths into UU. Please forgive me for assuming. I |+ also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table.
So, you were under the belief that a rather large service provider, only had one connection to UUNet? How many paths do you, yourself have into UU? Are they anything > DS3?
Did you bother reading the post prior to replying? Is English not your primary language? Is there some other reason why you don't understand "Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about his having multiple paths..."? As for paths into 701, we three. All of them > DS3. Have a nice day Darrin. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
|+ Did I say anything about requirements or anyone sharing employment history |+ with me? I simply restated a previous observation which is that many list |+ participants post from someplace other than their work email address. you whined, basically because you did not know where someone worked based on there email address. Stop whining, and we won't have this problem. |+ I got bombarded with emails from people because they ASSUMED that I knew |+ someone worked for 3967. I didn't. Your fault, for making it sound like you did. |+ I propose that you treat me in the manner in which you expect to be |+ treated. That is all I propose. The last time I checked, it wasn't |+ me who pissed in your cereal. My first email was not one being pissy, or being rude. Why is it you, who always tries to get people excited, and upset? I say this, especially because of the paragraph: |+ Did you bother reading the post prior to replying? Is English not your |+ primary language? Is there some other reason why you don't understand |+ "Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about |+ his having multiple paths..."? Your first question means nothing to me. Its very pointless. Your second question. I already answered this. Let me try again, maybe this time you will understand. Do you honestly think, a company like Exodus would only have one path to 701? Regardless of who said Exodus did, why would you not believe it? |+ As for paths into 701, we three. All of them > DS3. Quite funny, why do I not see 13944 behind 701? (I mean, I could go 701 -> 6347 -> 13944, or 6259 -> 13944, but not 701 -> 13944). Is something wrong on your side? |+ Have a nice day Darrin. having a great day, how about yourself? -- darrin walton, darrinw@nixc.net
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Darrin Walton wrote:
Do you honestly think, a company like Exodus would only have one path to 701? Regardless of who said Exodus did, why would you not believe it?
Did I say I didn't believe it? I said I didn't realize he worked for exodus. Had I known that, I wouldn't have suggested that if he filters _701_ from his other connections, he would lose 701 connectivity in the event that his 701 connection went down.
|+ As for paths into 701, we three. All of them > DS3.
Quite funny, why do I not see 13944 behind 701? (I mean, I could go 701 -> 6347 -> 13944, or 6259 -> 13944, but not 701 -> 13944). Is something wrong on your side?
There is nothing wrong on my side. We're not a direct peer of 701. I never said I did. I do have paths into 701 however. You didn't specify direct 701_13944.
|+ Have a nice day Darrin.
having a great day, how about yourself?
-- darrin walton, darrinw@nixc.net
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
|+ Did I say I didn't believe it? I said I didn't realize he worked for |+ exodus. Had I known that, I wouldn't have suggested that if he filters |+ _701_ from his other connections, he would lose 701 connectivity in the |+ event that his 701 connection went down. Are we done trying to show off our regex skills? |+ There is nothing wrong on my side. We're not a direct peer of 701. I |+ never said I did. I do have paths into 701 however. You didn't specify |+ direct 701_13944. Maybe you the one who does not understand the English language very well. Let me show you the original question I asked: |$ So, you were under the belief that a rather large service |$ provider, only had one connection to UUNet? How many paths do you, |$ yourself have into UU? Are they anything > DS3? Your response: |+ As for paths into 701, we three. All of them > DS3. Caught in a lie, and trying to cover our ass now? Did not think people would remember what was posted, less than an hour ago? How stupid do you take us for? I think we can end this thread now. As you can see, you are just making yourself look worse, than you already do. -- darrin walton, darrinw@nixc.net
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Darrin Walton wrote:
I think we can end this thread now. As you can see, you are just making yourself look worse, than you already do.
You do realise it's not John who's being the ass here? *plonk* -- Dominic J. Eidson "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
|$ So, you were under the belief that a rather large service |$ provider, only had one connection to UUNet? How many paths do you, |$ yourself have into UU? Are they anything > DS3?
Your response:
|+ As for paths into 701, we three. All of them > DS3.
Caught in a lie, and trying to cover our ass now? Did not think people would remember what was posted, less than an hour ago? How stupid do you take us for?
Huh? Lie? You asked how many paths I had into UU. We have transit from three different sources. We have three paths into 701. All connections are > DS3. Where is the lie? --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Darrin Walton wrote:
|+ Did I say anything about requirements or anyone sharing employment history |+ with me? I simply restated a previous observation which is that many list |+ participants post from someplace other than their work email address.
you whined, basically because you did not know where someone worked based on there email address. Stop whining, and we won't have this problem.
Excuse me? Whined? |Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:43:37 -0400 (EDT) |From: John Fraizer <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net> |To: troy@clownhammer.org |Cc: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen@nielsen.net>, Travis Pugh |<tpugh@shore.net>, Nanog mailing list <nanog@merit.edu> |Subject: Re: AS Leakage | |As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting |from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment. | |Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about |his having multiple paths into UU. Please forgive me for assuming. I |also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table. | | |--- |John Fraizer |EnterZone, Inc There is no whining. I simply stated that I did not realize that the individual worked for exodus and that had I known, there would have been no question about his having multiple paths into UU. As in: "Wow. Sorry. I didn't realize he worked for Exodus. Obviously they peer with 701 in multiple locations."
|+ I got bombarded with emails from people because they ASSUMED that I knew |+ someone worked for 3967. I didn't.
Your fault, for making it sound like you did.
Where is it that I made it sound like I did?
|+ I propose that you treat me in the manner in which you expect to be |+ treated. That is all I propose. The last time I checked, it wasn't |+ me who pissed in your cereal.
My first email was not one being pissy, or being rude. Why is it you, who always tries to get people excited, and upset? I say this, especially because of the paragraph:
Your first email was condecending and sarcasm laiden. You don't consider that being pissy or rude?
|+ Did you bother reading the post prior to replying? Is English not your |+ primary language? Is there some other reason why you don't understand |+ "Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about |+ his having multiple paths..."?
Your first question means nothing to me. Its very pointless.
Your second question. I already answered this. Let me try again, maybe this time you will understand.
Do you honestly think, a company like Exodus would only have one path to 701? Regardless of who said Exodus did, why would you not believe it?
How many ways can I say "I didn't realize that Christian was speaking about Exodus? Follow along if you will. On Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Christian Nielsen <cnielsen@nielsen.net> posted: " On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Travis Pugh wrote:
I take transit from Qwest (209), and had to contact them directly and open a ticket several weeks ago to get them to stop leaking private ASNs into my tables. They stopped leaking them to me, but apparently going the extra step and making sure the leak was filtered everywhere was too much to ask.
I have a question. Why do you allow Private ASNs into your network? We saw this once and put in the filters. Same with RFC1918 IPs and default. We dont care to listen to these from other networks so we filter. We saw 64/8 in our network, we filtered. We saw leaks from RESERVED-IANA blocks, so we filtered. We saw providers leaking exchange point blocks, so we filtered. we dont want to see _701_ from sprint or anyone except _701_, so we filter. we do this for other large providers. See a problem, filter. Maybe I should start a company and publish filters since most companies seem not to have real filters in their network :( Christian" To which I replied: "That's strange. Your 701 connection goes down and you've filtered any backup route you had into them. Good thinking." To which troy@clownhammer.org replied with a list of Exodus<->UU links.... To which I replied: "As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment. Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about his having multiple paths into UU. Please forgive me for assuming. I also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table." It's real simple. I didn't realize that Christian was speaking as Exodus when he used the word "We." I stated this and cited another NANOG post by Sean Doran from Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:42:09 -0700 (PDT) where he said: "P.S.: Isn't it cool that none of us is using an address which in any way informs a person who didn't already know, who it is that we work for?" I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus. I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus. I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus.
|+ As for paths into 701, we three. All of them > DS3.
Quite funny, why do I not see 13944 behind 701? (I mean, I could go 701 -> 6347 -> 13944, or 6259 -> 13944, but not 701 -> 13944). Is something wrong on your side?
Nothing wrong at all. Congrats on working for a 6461. We all know your _employer_ has direct peering relationships with 701. You're special. I'm proud of you. Can I do anything else to boost your ego? Probably not. I still like my path into www.uu.net better than yours: 1 main.bungi.com (207.126.97.9) 1.84 ms 1.89 ms 1.67 ms 2 above-gw1.above.net (207.126.96.249) 4.5 ms 3.90 ms 6.48 ms 3 epe2-epe1-fe.sjc1.above.net (209.249.0.206) 11.9 ms 9.99 ms 9.30 ms 4 main2-epe2-fe.sjc1.above.net (64.124.128.13) 6.91 ms 4.33 ms 5.40 ms 5 core5-main2-oc12.sjc1.above.net (209.133.31.189) 3.77 ms 4.9 ms 6.10 ms 6 core3-sjc1-oc48.sjc2.above.net (208.184.102.206) 4.9 ms 4.47 ms 4.14 ms 7 iad1-sjc2-oc48.iad1.above.net (216.200.127.25) 72.5 ms 72.1 ms 72.1 ms 8 core5-core1-oc48.iad1.above.net (208.185.0.146) 72.9 ms 73.8 ms 73.0 ms 9 lga1-iad1-oc192.lga1.above.net (208.184.233.66) 76.8 ms 77.1 ms 76.8 ms 10 core2-lga1-oc192.lga2.above.net (208.185.0.250) 80.4 ms 76.6 ms 149 ms 11 core3-core2-oc48.lga2.above.net (216.200.127.170) 79.6 ms 76.4 ms 76.3 ms 12 uunet-abovenet-oc12.lga2.above.net (208.184.231.246) 121 ms 77.5 ms 77.3 ms 13 526.at-5-0-0.XR2.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.23.78) 80.4 ms 78.7 ms 78.5 ms 14 182.at-2-0-0.TR2.NYC8.ALTER.NET (152.63.19.210) 78.0 ms 146 ms 78.0 ms 15 124.at-6-0-0.TR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.253) 120 ms 123 ms 123 ms 16 0.so-4-0-0.XR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.234) 121 ms 121 ms 120 ms 17 192.ATM7-0.SR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.125) 122 ms 121 ms 237 ms 18 * * * 19 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20) 121 ms 121 ms 121 ms 20 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20) 120 ms !U * 121 ms !U 1 CORE-0-GE-3-1000M.CMH.ENTERZONE.NET (66.35.65.1) 0.550 ms 0.683 ms 0.895 ms 2 64.241.88.6 (64.241.88.6) [6347] 12.375 ms 12.864 ms 12.602 ms 3 atm8-0-093.CR-2.uschcg.savvis.net (64.241.88.65) [6347] 13.240 ms 12.508 ms 12.480 ms 4 500.POS2-1.GW6.CHI6.ALTER.NET (157.130.116.201) [701] 12.316 ms 13.141 ms 11.699 ms 5 117.ATM2-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.209.170) [701] 12.331 ms 12.708 ms 12.619 ms 6 191.at-1-1-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.242) [701] 13.622 ms 13.131 ms 12.654 ms 7 106.at-6-1-0.TR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (146.188.142.33) [701] 64.484 ms 64.417 ms 63.480 ms 8 0.so-4-0-0.XR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.226) [701] 63.511 ms 63.545 ms 64.432 ms 9 193.ATM5-0.SR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET (152.63.81.113) [701] 64.489 ms 64.268 ms 65.451 ms 10 * * * 11 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20) [11486] 63.762 ms 65.269 ms 65.466 ms 12 loopback0.msfc1.dr1.atl7.web.uu.net (198.5.128.20) [11486] 65.090 ms !X 65.451 ms $host -l customer.alter.net | grep above abovenet-tco1.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.38.138 abovenet-tco2.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.38.142 above2-t3-gw.customer.alter.net has address 137.39.252.34 above-gw.customer.alter.net has address 137.39.133.142 abovenet-pao1-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.194.102 above.net-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.138.46 abovenet-tco-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.33.114 abovenet-pao2-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.194.106 abovenetnyc-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.31.46 abovenetchi-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.111.90 abovenet-dca-gw.customer.alter.net has address 157.130.37.254 Wow. Surely out of all those 701 circuits, you could have handed that traffic off to 701 prior to hauling it to New York first. I still bow to your obviously superior connectivity. Your _EMPLOYER_ has more peering agreements in place than _MY_ company has. You win.
|+ Have a nice day Darrin.
having a great day, how about yourself?
It's getting better by the second. Now that we _hopefully_ both understand how the thread went, can we let this drop? Better yet. You can say what you like. I'm not replying any further to you. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, John Fraizer wrote:
How many ways can I say "I didn't realize that Christian was speaking about Exodus?
I try to speak about networks in general. I hope that many people on the list understand peering and filtering. For example. If I peer with any provider, from Sprint to the provider sending me 1 route I will filter _701_ from all of them. I will also filter _1239_ from _701_ and all other peers. Please be aware, that I used the term PEER and not Transit provider. I would filter the RFC1918 from peers and transit providers. I would filter IANA-RESERVED. I would filter my own IP space (no reason to see someone else deagg towards me) People have emailed me privately about filtering and I have given some examples of filtering. At the end of Feb, Steve Meuse and I talked about filtering at the LINX meeting. If people would have followed some of the information given, they might not have had a problem when an internet provider leaked the linx IP addresses ! LINX access-list 1 deny 195.66.224.0 access-list 1 deny 195.66.225.0 Here is the URL if anyone would like to look at some of the filtering Exodus does http://www.nielsen.net/people/christian/linx.html Christian
I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus. I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus. I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus.
btw, i still work for Exodus...
Is there a published list of best practice filters out there? -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Christian Nielsen Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:42 PM To: John Fraizer Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: AS Leakage (filter) On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, John Fraizer wrote:
How many ways can I say "I didn't realize that Christian was speaking about Exodus?
I try to speak about networks in general. I hope that many people on the list understand peering and filtering. For example. If I peer with any provider, from Sprint to the provider sending me 1 route I will filter _701_ from all of them. I will also filter _1239_ from _701_ and all other peers. Please be aware, that I used the term PEER and not Transit provider. I would filter the RFC1918 from peers and transit providers. I would filter IANA-RESERVED. I would filter my own IP space (no reason to see someone else deagg towards me) People have emailed me privately about filtering and I have given some examples of filtering. At the end of Feb, Steve Meuse and I talked about filtering at the LINX meeting. If people would have followed some of the information given, they might not have had a problem when an internet provider leaked the linx IP addresses ! LINX access-list 1 deny 195.66.224.0 access-list 1 deny 195.66.225.0 Here is the URL if anyone would like to look at some of the filtering Exodus does http://www.nielsen.net/people/christian/linx.html Christian
I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus. I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus. I _DID_NOT_KNOW_ that Christian worked for Exodus.
btw, i still work for Exodus...
participants (8)
-
Christian Nielsen -
Darrin Walton -
Dominic J. Eidson -
John Fraizer -
Josh Richards -
Robbie Harrell -
Steve Noble -
troy＠clownhammer.org