If you are asking that, what did you think this meant?
2. help the Crown upgrade their setup from 3 T1s to a DS3. (the fiber
is there.)
Carl K
Hyunseog Ryu wrote:
Did you check with hotel whether they have available fiber or coax from
local CO ?
In that case, installation cost may be
over the years, i've grown quite accustomed to feeling out pricing of bandwidth
based on 95th percentile peak utilization with various minimums and potential
tiers.
i've always sorta viewed pricing by bytes transferred to be a consumer thing
that my uncle might pay when hosting his webpages
Hi Jim,
well transfer is equivalent to an ordinary average if you want to bring it
back into something you can compare.. (so divide by number of seconds in a
month and multiply by 8 to get to bits per second)
Average pricing should give you better rates as you can do some crazy bursting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory:
Cisco IOS Secure Copy Authorization Bypass Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20070808-scp
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070808-scp.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2007 August 08 1600 UTC (GMT
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote:
This has been a pain for me for years. I have tried to reason with
security people about this and, while they don't dispute my reasoning,
they always end up saying that it is the standard practice and that,
lacking any evidence of what it might be
mtr snip
9.
tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net
0.0% 6.8 5.5 4.7 6.8 0.4
10.
gbr5.sffca.ip.att.net
I get the same thing in Atlanta. I can't pull up their site and it looks like
my trace dies the same place as yours.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute www.cisco.com
traceroute to www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 gw_alpha.america.net (69.60.176.65) 1.618 ms 1.499
i normally agree with doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas Otis) writes:
Ensuring an authoritative domain name server responds via UDP is a
critical security requirement. TCP will not create the same risk of a
resolver being poisoned, but a TCP connection will consume a significant
amount of
Getting to Cisco now, but server is resetting the connection... Power
outage maybe?
mtr snip
9.
tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net
2.5% 3.8 5.0 3.4 68.4
To enhance what Steve said here. Bytes transfered would be the average
if you are using a tool that doesn't degrade its historical data stores.
There are certain adjustments to say MRTG that are available that will
give you real bytes transfered.
Depending on the provider, Bytes
Me too, looks like were riding uunet there now
6 3 ms1 ms1 ms POS1-0-0.GW18.NYC4.ALTER.NET
[157.130.21.73]
7 2 ms 9 ms 1 ms 0.ge-3-0-0.XL3.NYC4.ALTER.NET
[152.63.22.226]
873 ms72 ms73 ms 0.so-1-0-0.XL1.SJC1.ALTER.NET
[152.63.50.26]
972 ms72 ms
http://infiltrated.net/ciscoOutage.jpg
--
J. Oquendo
Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xF684C42E
sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Does anyone else see the irony in all this if it does turn out to be cisco's
fault? High Availability, multiple upstream providers, backup generators and
all that?
scott
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott
Weeks
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:28 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or ATT?
Does anyone else see the irony in all this if it does turn out to be cisco's
fault? High Availability,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas Otis) writes:
Ensuring an authoritative domain name server responds via UDP is a
critical security requirement. TCP will not create the same risk
of a resolver being poisoned, but a TCP connection will consume a
... but a TCP connection will consume a
significant amount of a name server's resources.
...wrong.
Wanting to understand this comment, ...
the resources given a nameserver to TCP connections are tightly controlled,
as described in RFC 1035 4.2.2. so while TCP/53 can become unreliable
On Aug 8, 2007, at 6:20 PM, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
All things being equal (which they're usually not) you could use
the ACK
response time of the TCP handshake if they've got TCP DNS resolution
available. Though again most
Is anyone else having trouble with Level 3 in New York ? We have
circuits down, etc.
Regards
Marshall
At 10:10 PM 8/8/2007, you wrote:
Is anyone else having trouble with Level 3 in New York ? We have
circuits down, etc.
An OC192 is down we have about 80 T1s down on the Broadwing/L3 network.
-Robert
Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995
http://www.tellurian.com |
19 matches
Mail list logo
