[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Hennigan) writes:
> Is Time-Warner associated with Charter Communications? There's a thread
> on Slashdot about their name servers being hijacked to point all requests
> to a set of rogue proxy servers.
s/name/dhcp/. specifically, the article states:
Of course,
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Vicky Rode wrote:
> If a whole bunch of people are having the same issue and they're all on
> Time Warner in your neck of the woods, it probably isn't the cable modem
> hardware.
> ---
> vickyr> exactly my point.
Is Time-Warner associated with Charter Co
Hi Jay,
comments in-line:
-Original Message-
From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:22 PM
To: Vicky Rode
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: has anyone notice this ?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Vicky Rode wrote:
> It would be easier to troubleshoot if
Hi Todd,
sorry about the late responseyes in fact i am using my own dns servers
w/o any problems (knock on wood)time warner think its their cable modem
box but i think its a caching issue on there end.
regards,
/vicky
-Original Message-
From: Todd Mitchell - lists [mailto:[EM
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Mary Grace wrote:
> So, is it still true that we do not need anything more powerful than a 4500
> or 4700 to run this system? I believe that is true if we take default
> routes advertised by the upstream on both sides, and the two diverse-path
> circuits ARE being advertised
Folks -
Perhaps along with soliciting advice from this community I would have
been better served to go right to Sister Mary Grace and asked for
assistance from a higher authority than even NANOG. God was clearly NOT
smiling on us this weekend!! But on the other hand He has deservedly
had a few