nanog@merit.edu
Try LA DWP. They have fiber (lit & dark) going between most buildings downtown. Contact is: Eric Taylor[EMAIL PROTECTED] 866.DWP.LAON (397.5266)
nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:39:30PM -0700, nanog wrote: > > I hate posting to an operational list with this kind of stuff, > but i'm in a bind. > > Does anyone have dark fiber (or gig-e capability) between LA Equinix > (600 W. 7th St) and LA switch and data (1200 W. 7th St)? > > Unfortunately, we picked a new vendor on this one, and they hung > us out to dry (dragging feet, never completed, etc, etc.) Now > we need it up asap. > > Please reply off-list. Salescritters welcome, as long as you are > reasonable (don't try and sell me a $5k gig-e transport.) Salescritters are better found on isp-bandwidth, not nanog. http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-bandwidth/ -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
nanog@merit.edu
I hate posting to an operational list with this kind of stuff, but i'm in a bind. Does anyone have dark fiber (or gig-e capability) between LA Equinix (600 W. 7th St) and LA switch and data (1200 W. 7th St)? Unfortunately, we picked a new vendor on this one, and they hung us out to dry (dragging feet, never completed, etc, etc.) Now we need it up asap. Please reply off-list. Salescritters welcome, as long as you are reasonable (don't try and sell me a $5k gig-e transport.) thanks bill
Re: ISP Best Practices
"ISP Essentials"
ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/cons/isp/essentials/>
There's also a hardcopy book that's worthwhile.
-jr
* A. Arsalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030627 08:23]:
> Hello,
>
> Could someone please help me finding out ISP Best practices in terms of
> design, routing and security? I would appreciate if you share the
> pointers (URL) or the documents.
--
Josh Richards |
Digital West Networks, Inc. | +1-{888,805}-781-9378
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | www.digitalwest.net / AS14589 & AS29962
DWNI - Making Internet Business Better
Re: Over three million computers 0wned?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc") writes:
> It would be interesting to know if the FBI or any other group can
> characterize how many computers are 0wn3d per minute. Then, of those
> computers, how many remain 0wn3d indefinitely?
what's interesting here is the changing definition of "0wn3d". there was
a time when installing malbots on someone's computer meant you "0wn3d" it
but now that there's spammer malware that searches for "open proxies" a
vast number of said proxies appear to be of "0wn3d" computers. therefore
a spammer who would not go so far as to install the malbot is absolutely
willing to make use of it once it's been installed by others. "0wn3rship"
seems to be pretty anonymous at this point. (shades of "shockwave rider".)
i guess palladium will fix all this, somehow.
--
Paul Vixie
Re: Netsol fubar.
In a message written on Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:36:43AM -0500, Brad Killebrew wrote: > Has anyone noticed that Netsol has fubared the creation dates for domains? > I registered my first domain (cet.net) in May 1995, now it shows 2002. All > of my domains are affected. I see a similar issue, although not on all domains. A number that I know where registered between 1992 and 1997 now all have creation dates in 2002. It is disturbing, to say the least. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
FW: Netsol fubar.
My few domains that remain registered at Netsol have this same foobar affecting the creation dates. Originally registered in 1995/1996, they now show 2002 as well. Jay Stewart > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brad Killebrew > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Netsol fubar. > > Has anyone noticed that Netsol has fubared the creation dates > for domains? > I registered my first domain (cet.net) in May 1995, now it > shows 2002. All of my domains are affected. > > > Brad
Re: Netsol fubar.
Domain Name: CET.NET Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.CET.NET Name Server: NS2.TXIC.NET Status: ACTIVE Updated Date: 13-may-2003 Creation Date: 30-may-1995 Expiration Date: 29-may-2004 Looks fine to me. Regards, Joe Boyce --- InterStar, Inc. - Shasta.com Internet Phone: +1 (530) 224-6866 x105 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, July 1, 2003, 9:36:43 AM, you wrote: BK> Has anyone noticed that Netsol has fubared the creation dates for domains? BK> I registered my first domain (cet.net) in May 1995, now it shows 2002. All BK> of my domains are affected. BK> Brad
Re: Netsol fubar.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Brad Killebrew wrote: > > > Has anyone noticed that Netsol has fubared the creation dates for domains? > I registered my first domain (cet.net) in May 1995, now it shows 2002. All > of my domains are affected. > hijacker :)
Re: Netsol fubar.
It has been going on for a while. Trust whois.crsnic.net dates not the ones displayed in registrar whois. On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Brad Killebrew wrote: > > > Has anyone noticed that Netsol has fubared the creation dates for domains? > I registered my first domain (cet.net) in May 1995, now it shows 2002. All > of my domains are affected. > > > Brad > >
Netsol fubar.
Has anyone noticed that Netsol has fubared the creation dates for domains? I registered my first domain (cet.net) in May 1995, now it shows 2002. All of my domains are affected. Brad
Re: National Do Not Call Registry has opened
Callahan, Richard M, SOLGV wrote: political and charitable orgs are exempt. also if you have an existing relationship with a company, they have 18 months before you fall from their list. Callahan, May I recommend a nice little program called QuoteFix, that will rewrap your quotes and make them a lot prettier. They have one for Outlook and OE, I believe. :) I wish they had incorporated into the law a "no thankyou" clause for political and charitable orgs. It's rude to just hang up on someone, and it's even more rude to have the caller's stay on the line trying to get a donation until you hang up on them. "No Thankyou" should be clear, concise, and end the call in a polite and civilized manner. -Jack
Re: National Do Not Call Registry has opened
> > It was occasionally amusing to keep them on the phone for about half an > hour, and then say "of course, you realise this is an international > call, there's no way I can buy what you're selling, and in fact this is > costing you vast sums of money". Until I realised that they thought > "international" meant out-of-state, and that they thought New Zealand > was a town in Southern California. > And bulk buying international minutes to non-regulated destinations costs you less than a consumer pays for interstate call within the US. So if you time is worth less than $2 an hour, go ahead :-) If the event you describe happened 10 years ago, you actually did some good. Pete
Re: National Do Not Call Registry has opened
--On 30 June 2003 22:12 -0400 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course, it does nothing for people outside the US who get cold-called by US-based telemarketers. ... It was occasionally amusing to keep them on the phone for about half an hour, I had thought that this was the purpose of hold music... Alex
