John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
>> It is fast looking as if the ability to sustain a large and very
>> well-attended network of interconnected remote hubs might become a
>> necessity rather than merely an appealing alternative...
> (and this will require some formal process for mike queuing at the
> "interconnected remote hubs".)
Don't cancel SFO; just renegotiate it for much a smaller group of west-coast
"locals". Maybe we can do this with minimal impact to the contract.
So we have 99, 100, and 101 to get all the mike queue and remote hubs working.
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Description: PGP signature