Don't forget that
in this 14 state region, interLATA connections for Qwest are handled
by a third party (generally TouchAmerica for IP connectivity from
what I've seen).
That fact may, or may not, mean anything to you. If you goal is to
reach me, it may be discouraging - but I doubt it.
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:58:27AM -0400, Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL) wrote:
> Does anyone have any current opinions on Williams IP service and any
> expected changes with the Chapter 11?
>
> Shane
Can't speak to their service, as I've never bought anything from them.
After multiple spams in the l
nymore.
- for N > X -- tell the sender that we aren't delivering the mail
because it is likely to get us put on a blacklist.
We haven't fleshed things out completely, because we're not sure
the cure is better than the disease yet...
--
John Osmon
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:05:44PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
[...]
> I think one of the major problems is that very few people know
> how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 frames (at increased
> delay, but more data per packet) because they can't set these more granular
> settings on
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:53:13PM -0400, Robert Blayzor wrote:
>
> Has anyone else noticed any strange problems lately when querying
> UltraDNS for name server records?
Not for name server records, but we do have a glue record in .org that
pops up when querying one ultradns.net TLD nameserver,
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> In the US, American Tower is/was liquidating a number of cold war era
> ex-AT&T blast-proof sites. They are all in need of an upgrade, but the
> basics are there (underground, multiple layers of concrete, blast doors,
> etc. Even "blast toilets". I'
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:37:30PM -0500, Robert M. Enger wrote:
> You'd think after three previous disruptions, that Qwest would
> have enabled some form of redundancy.
>
> The Washington State PUC doesn't appear to be providing
> very good oversight.
Farmington, NM doesn't have any redundancy
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:15:11AM -0500, Douglas S. Peeples wrote:
>
> What you describe is a folded ring and is indicative of either a temporary
> solution or bad network design. As a rule, phone companies and capacity
> suppliers build very robust systems.
LATA and ILEC boundaries, along w
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:03:32PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet wrote:
> > ** Reply to message from Drew Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 19 Apr 2004
> > 13:42:53 -0400
[...notification of the...]
> > > average home Dial-Up user
Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for
IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make
sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked
out of it rather easily.
Years ago, I worked on a academic network where we had a mix
of IPX, DECnet, A
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:12:54AM -0400, Jason LeBlanc wrote:
>
> OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man that brings back
> memories.
Yeah, I realy did, but my fingers typed 'decnet isn't routable' because
that how the folks I worked with at the time described the issue. I wa
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 05:51:38PM -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
[...]
> Analog modem and voice line and TAP software (like sendpage or qpage)
I like the TAP route with qpage.
I was starting to get spam via my provider's e-mail to SMS gateway. They were
kind enough to disable it, and we use TAP t
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:20:53AM -0800, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> Rod Beck wrote:
> >I am suggesting a Certified Drinkers Event in the hotel bar Sunday evening.
>
> Any Hash House Harriers in our midst?
The thought of the cross-section of society that would partake in both
NANOG and H^3 is rath
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:51:39PM -0800, Jason Arnaute wrote:
[...]
> Or am I just getting ripped off ?
I have actually seen contracts that have current pricing over
$200/Mbps -- but the person responsible isn't allowed to
"negotiate" on transit prices anymore. :-)
(To be fair, at the time
14 matches
Mail list logo