http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3561756/detail.html
The event monitor gives all the agencies instant access to any event to
local police, fire officials, the FBI and dozens of law enforcement
representatives working with utility providers. Public safety officials
from our carriers --
On 23.07 22:30, Simon Waters wrote:
The abstract doesn't mention that the TTL on NS records is found to be
important for scalability of the DNS.
Sic!
And it is the *child* TTL that counts for most implementations.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3561756/detail.html
The event monitor gives all the agencies instant access to any event to
local police, fire officials, the FBI and dozens of law enforcement
representatives working with utility providers. Public safety officials
from our carriers --
At 02:01 PM 7/21/2004, Eric Brown wrote:
Anyone have experience with Proxim's tsunami quickbridge for wireless
connectivity between buildings at line of site distances under 1 mile?
It's cheaper than Cisco and looks good on paper. Looking for the good
bad and ugly. Thanks in advance!
Cheaper
On the matter of the type of cabling to be used between the Telco Demarc and the
CPE, I have found this to be one of the most shrouded of all areas in telecom
standards. The jabber and deliberations that have taken place over this issue
border on folk lore and hijinx, and could fill a plant
Forrest W. Christian wrote:
In Qwest land, NIU, Smart Jack, and Demarc (unless
extended) are all in the same physical rack.
When you get a T1, qwest installs an appropriately
sized shelf. This shelf holds the adtran and
westell devices shown in earlier posts. For example,
we have one site
Michel Py wrote:
I stopped by a T1 MPOE on my way home and took a few photos.
Michael Loftis wrote:
hate to say it but what is pictured is not a smart jack,
it is as you say a glorified patch.
Care to post a photo of what you think a smartjack is?
a *TRUE* smart jack DOES have the tiny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen where STP (shielded twisted-pair cabling) purists have
succeeded in having shielded cabling used, only to screw it up by
mis-applying the necessary grounding connections causing more
problems than they solved.
I have also seen funny issues with RJ48C or
the primary beneficiaries of this new functionality are spammers and
other malfeasants
... The primary beneficiaries are all
^
intended
current and future .com/.net domain holders:
I'm not talking about intended beneficiaries. I agree with your
I'm not talking about intended beneficiaries. I agree with your statement
when applied to intended beneficiaries. I'm talking about the character
of the preponderance of actual beneficiaries, whether measured by number
of domain registration events per unit time, or number of dollars of
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not talking about intended beneficiaries. I agree with your statement
when applied to intended beneficiaries. I'm talking about the character
of the preponderance of actual beneficiaries, whether measured by number
of domain registration events
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/22/HNmicrosoftid_1.html
As a side note, I notice that the article mentions a submission to the
IETF but I haven't seen any RFC's related, if there is one out there
can someone please point it out for me?
I didn't see anything obvious here:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:49:41PM -0400, John Bittenbender wrote:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/22/HNmicrosoftid_1.html
As a side note, I notice that the article mentions a submission to the
IETF but I haven't seen any RFC's related, if there is one out there
can someone please
Hey Folks,
It appears that NSI isn't talking to the GTLD, got any ideas?
Sponsoring Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc. Registrar (R122-LRMS)
Status: INACTIVE ?
Status: OK
All the best,
Peter Schroebel
Thank you gentlemen.
try the marid working group...
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html
John B
15 matches
Mail list logo
