Re: hub-spoke topology and response time

Well I have a feeling that it depends on CPU process invloved .
Broadcast will consume more CPU cycles ..
My observations are :

Rack1R5#ping 173.1.125.2 rep 1000

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 173.1.125.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Success rate is 99 percent (100/101), round-trip min/avg/max = 56/56/60 ms
Rack1R5#
Rack1R5#
Rack1R5#ping 173.1.125.1 rep 1000

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 173.1.125.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Success rate is 96 percent (27/28), round-trip min/avg/max = 56/56/60 ms
Rack1R5#
Rack1R5#ping 173.1.125.255 rep 1000

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 173.1.125.255, timeout is 2 seconds:

Reply to request 0 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 0 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 1 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 1 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 2 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 2 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 3 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 3 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 4 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 4 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 5 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 5 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 6 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 6 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 7 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 7 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 8 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 8 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Reply to request 9 from 173.1.125.1, 96 ms
Reply to request 9 from 173.1.125.2, 108 ms
Rack1R5#

Hardware : WIC-2T Platform : c2811 ; Image :
c2800nm-adventerprisek9-mz.124-16.14.T

So in my case i am not seeing the time interval going to one high and
then coming to low and again rising

Best Regards
Gaurav Madan
CCIE # 23863

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Alexei Monastyrnyi<alexeim73_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Scott, Mihai.
>
> Setup I am playing with has all routers' CPUs idling so I doubt it is a
> CPU-related. And it is not a hub-and-spoke specific, just a simple FR link
> shows different directed broadcast behavior comparing to unicast; namely,
> for the broadcast one it grows from 4 ms up to around 100 ms and then drops
> back to 4 ms. And this is quasi-periodic, happens every 2 minutes and 30
> seconds +-4 seconds. :-) I played around with "frame-relay broadcast-queue"
> settings for that interface and ICMP packet size, didn't seem to make any
> difference.
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk713/tk237/technologies_tech_note09186a008014f8a7.shtml#topic9
>
> I guess it might be also platform and/or interface specific for period and
> min/max reply time, my setup is 2611 routers.
>
> R1#ping ip 2.2.2.255 re 300
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 300, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2.2.2.255, timeout is 2 seconds:
>
> Reply to request 0 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 1 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 2 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 3 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 4 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 5 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 6 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 7 from 2.2.2.2, 57 ms
> Reply to request 8 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 9 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 10 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 11 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 12 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 13 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 14 from 2.2.2.2, 77 ms
> Reply to request 15 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 16 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 17 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 18 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 19 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 20 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 21 from 2.2.2.2, 85 ms
> Reply to request 22 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 23 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 24 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 25 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 26 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 27 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 28 from 2.2.2.2, 93 ms
> Reply to request 29 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 30 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 31 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 32 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 33 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 34 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 35 from 2.2.2.2, 101 ms
> Reply to request 36 from 2.2.2.2, 104 ms
> Reply to request 37 from 2.2.2.2, 104 ms
> Reply to request 38 from 2.2.2.2, 4 ms
> Reply to request 39 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 40 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 41 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 42 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 43 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 44 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 45 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 46 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 47 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 48 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 49 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 50 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 51 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 52 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 53 from 2.2.2.2, 17 ms
> Reply to request 54 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 55 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 56 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 57 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 58 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 59 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 60 from 2.2.2.2, 25 ms
> Reply to request 61 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 62 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 63 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 64 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 65 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 66 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 67 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 68 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 69 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
>
> Reply to request 70 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 71 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 72 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 73 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 74 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 75 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 76 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 77 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 78 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 79 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 80 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 81 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 82 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 83 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 84 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 85 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 86 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 87 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 88 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 89 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 90 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 91 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 92 from 2.2.2.2, 61 ms
> Reply to request 93 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 94 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 95 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 96 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 97 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 98 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 99 from 2.2.2.2, 69 ms
> Reply to request 100 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 101 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 102 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 103 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 104 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 105 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 106 from 2.2.2.2, 89 ms
> Reply to request 107 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 108 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 109 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 110 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 111 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 112 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 113 from 2.2.2.2, 97 ms
> Reply to request 114 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 115 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 116 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 117 from 2.2.2.2, 4 ms
> Reply to request 118 from 2.2.2.2, 4 ms
> Reply to request 119 from 2.2.2.2, 4 ms
> Reply to request 120 from 2.2.2.2, 105 ms
> Reply to request 121 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 122 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 123 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 124 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 125 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 126 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 127 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 128 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 129 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 130 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 131 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 132 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 133 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 134 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 135 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 136 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 137 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 138 from 2.2.2.2, 29 ms
> Reply to request 139 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
>
> Reply to request 140 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 141 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 142 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 143 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 144 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 145 from 2.2.2.2, 37 ms
> Reply to request 146 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 147 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 148 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 149 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 150 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 151 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 152 from 2.2.2.2, 45 ms
> Reply to request 153 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 154 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 155 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 156 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 157 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 158 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 159 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 160 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 161 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 162 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 163 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 164 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 165 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 166 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 167 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 168 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 169 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 170 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 171 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 172 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 173 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 174 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 175 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 176 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 177 from 2.2.2.2, 73 ms
> Reply to request 178 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 179 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 180 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 181 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 182 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 183 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 184 from 2.2.2.2, 97 ms
> Reply to request 185 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 186 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 187 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 188 from 2.2.2.2, 104 ms
> Reply to request 189 from 2.2.2.2, 4 ms
> Reply to request 190 from 2.2.2.2, 120 ms
> Reply to request 191 from 2.2.2.2, 105 ms
> Reply to request 192 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 193 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 194 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 195 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 196 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 197 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 198 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 199 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 200 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 201 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 202 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 203 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 204 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 205 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 206 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 207 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 208 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 209 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
>
> Reply to request 210 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 211 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 212 from 2.2.2.2, 28 ms
> Reply to request 213 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 214 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 215 from 2.2.2.2, 32 ms
> Reply to request 216 from 2.2.2.2, 33 ms
> Reply to request 217 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 218 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 219 from 2.2.2.2, 36 ms
> Reply to request 220 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 221 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 222 from 2.2.2.2, 40 ms
> Reply to request 223 from 2.2.2.2, 41 ms
> Reply to request 224 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 225 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 226 from 2.2.2.2, 44 ms
> Reply to request 227 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 228 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 229 from 2.2.2.2, 48 ms
> Reply to request 230 from 2.2.2.2, 49 ms
> Reply to request 231 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 232 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 233 from 2.2.2.2, 52 ms
> Reply to request 234 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 235 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 236 from 2.2.2.2, 56 ms
> Reply to request 237 from 2.2.2.2, 57 ms
> Reply to request 238 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 239 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 240 from 2.2.2.2, 60 ms
> Reply to request 241 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 242 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 243 from 2.2.2.2, 64 ms
> Reply to request 244 from 2.2.2.2, 65 ms
> Reply to request 245 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 246 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 247 from 2.2.2.2, 68 ms
> Reply to request 248 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 249 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 250 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 251 from 2.2.2.2, 72 ms
> Reply to request 252 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 253 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 254 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 255 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 256 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 257 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 258 from 2.2.2.2, 76 ms
> Reply to request 259 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 260 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 261 from 2.2.2.2, 80 ms
> Reply to request 262 from 2.2.2.2, 81 ms
> Reply to request 263 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 264 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 265 from 2.2.2.2, 84 ms
> Reply to request 266 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 267 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 268 from 2.2.2.2, 88 ms
> Reply to request 269 from 2.2.2.2, 89 ms
> Reply to request 270 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 271 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 272 from 2.2.2.2, 92 ms
> Reply to request 273 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 274 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 275 from 2.2.2.2, 96 ms
> Reply to request 276 from 2.2.2.2, 97 ms
> Reply to request 277 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 278 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
> Reply to request 279 from 2.2.2.2, 100 ms
>
> Reply to request 280 from 2.2.2.2, 4 ms
> Reply to request 281 from 2.2.2.2, 104 ms
> Reply to request 282 from 2.2.2.2, 4 ms
> Reply to request 283 from 2.2.2.2, 105 ms
> Reply to request 284 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 285 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 286 from 2.2.2.2, 8 ms
> Reply to request 287 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 288 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 289 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 290 from 2.2.2.2, 12 ms
> Reply to request 291 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 292 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 293 from 2.2.2.2, 16 ms
> Reply to request 294 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 295 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 296 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 297 from 2.2.2.2, 20 ms
> Reply to request 298 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
> Reply to request 299 from 2.2.2.2, 24 ms
>
> Scott M Vermillion wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mihai,
>>
>> Just a total guess here but I'm thinking internal interrupt scheduling
>> w/in IOS. Likely the broadcast traffic is left in the CPU waiting room a
>> little longer on the receiving end relative to the unicast traffic.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply but I have a few thousand backlogged messages yet
>> to go and it doesn't appear as if you ever got any other response...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:11 , mihai.grigore_at_orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
>>
>>> Fellow experts,
>>>
>>> I have a simple topology: R5 is hub and R1, R3 are spokes.
>>> IP range is 155.1.0.x/24 where x=router number.
>>> I am using static FR mapping
>>>
>>> R5#sh fram map
>>> Serial0/0 (up): ip 155.1.0.1 dlci 501(0x1F5,0x7C50), static,
>>> broadcast,
>>> CISCO, status defined, active
>>> Serial0/0 (up): ip 155.1.0.3 dlci 503(0x1F7,0x7C70), static,
>>> broadcast,
>>> CISCO, status defined, active
>>>
>>> I have a question: why unicast and broadcast response times are so
>>> different?
>>>
>>> For unicast, I have about 57 ms:
>>>
>>> R5#pi 155.1.0.1
>>>
>>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>>> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 155.1.0.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
>>> !!!!!
>>> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 56/57/60 ms
>>> R5#pi 155.1.0.3
>>>
>>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>>> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 155.1.0.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
>>> !!!!!
>>> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 56/57/60 ms
>>>
>>>
>>> For broadcast, I have almost double:
>>>
>>> R5#pi 255.255.255.255
>>>
>>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>>> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 255.255.255.255, timeout is 2 seconds:
>>>
>>> Reply to request 0 from 155.1.0.3, 88 ms
>>> Reply to request 0 from 155.1.0.1, 100 ms
>>> Reply to request 1 from 155.1.0.3, 88 ms
>>> Reply to request 1 from 155.1.0.1, 100 ms
>>> Reply to request 2 from 155.1.0.3, 113 ms
>>> Reply to request 2 from 155.1.0.1, 125 ms
>>> Reply to request 3 from 155.1.0.3, 116 ms
>>> Reply to request 3 from 155.1.0.1, 128 ms
>>> Reply to request 4 from 155.1.0.3, 116 ms
>>> Reply to request 4 from 155.1.0.1, 128 ms
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a big deal, but anyone tell me why this?
>>>
>>> TIA, MIhai
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found
>> at:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Jul 22 2009 - 18:53:17 ART