Re: XP SP2 other than windows update
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] ca.us, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I hadn't heard they were keeping it off akamai. Me neither. Although I had it for a while I downloaded it from the Microsoft web site again twice today (did not bother to look where it resolved), from home and office, and it came each time in less than 15 minutes for the full network install file. I have broadband, and most file downloads arrive at the full 512K. A week ago the SP2 install took over an hour, though, and when I checked the url again yesterday it started arriving at around 120kbps. -- Roland Perry
Re: Definition of P2P (was Feinstein)
Bora Akyol wrote: Kazaa, Gnutella, ... Without getting stuck in the specifics, is there a change in usage patterns and bandwidth requirements with the current gen P2P services? The late developments seem to favour BitTorrent at the expense of KaZaa and eDonkey, while DC/DC++ keeps it's user base. Pete
Re: optics pricing (Re: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior)
On the other hand, it'd be nice to see a copper 10GBIC, even if its max cable length were a few metres. ;-) There is one. It's called CX4 and has a reach of 15 meters. Cisco sold it for $600 list price at first but it has now disappeared from the price list. I don't know why. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps4835/products_data_sheet09186a008007cd00.html According to my info sources (I tried to purchase some a couple of weeks ago) they have not yet been released (= delayed) and that's why they have been removed from the GPL... should be back within a month (hopefully). I'm trying to get my sticky fingers on a few for testing in our lab... the other problem is finding people that actually stock the CX4 patch cables. Thomas
OT: Arnold on BGP
To doze who cridisize da BGP protocol, I say dis: DON'T BE NETVERK GIRLY-MEN Mike McSpedon Arrow Global Data Communications Arrow Electronics, Inc. 50 Marcus Drive Melville, New York 11747
Re: optics pricing (Re: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior)
Ordered them when they first became available order is still on New Product Hold. BTW they use standard infiniband cables Scott C. McGrath On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Thomas Kernen wrote: On the other hand, it'd be nice to see a copper 10GBIC, even if its max cable length were a few metres. ;-) There is one. It's called CX4 and has a reach of 15 meters. Cisco sold it for $600 list price at first but it has now disappeared from the price list. I don't know why. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps4835/products_data_sheet09186a008007cd00.html According to my info sources (I tried to purchase some a couple of weeks ago) they have not yet been released (= delayed) and that's why they have been removed from the GPL... should be back within a month (hopefully). I'm trying to get my sticky fingers on a few for testing in our lab... the other problem is finding people that actually stock the CX4 patch cables. Thomas
RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
Hello folks, This is actually NANOG applicable, despite referring to RIPE... ;-) How many of you who manage BGP speaking networks implement the RIPE best practices regarding dampening parameters for so-called golden networks? See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/routeflap-damping.html and http://www.qorbit.net/documents/golden-networks (thanks, Steve!) If you do, what parameters do you use, or do you not dampen the golden networks at all? If you don't implement ripe-229, why not? If there is enough interest/response (i.e if anyone besides me feels this is a real operational issue currently and wants to deal with it), I'll work on compiling the responses and producing a report. Note: A *significant* number of networks appear to *not* follow ripe-229 guidelines at all. Thanks, Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC http://www.centergate.com Technology so advanced, even WE don't understand it(R)
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
well RIPE is the RIR for Europe. RIPE-229 is, from my viewpoint, arbitrary and capricious. the root servers are -ONE- set of interesting servers. what about the web sites that point to these important documents? or the time servers, or my NOC monitoring machines? The idea of an Internet Registry stepping into giving routing advice is a leap of faith. An RIR can tell you what was delegated - but presuming to give advice on what is important for everyone that uses IP protocols is over the top. so no, i don't use this document as a guideline for golden networks. the advice on dampening is important tho and it worthwhile. On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:44, Rodney Joffe wrote: Hello folks, This is actually NANOG applicable, despite referring to RIPE... ;-) How many of you who manage BGP speaking networks implement the RIPE best practices regarding dampening parameters for so-called golden networks? See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/routeflap-damping.html and http://www.qorbit.net/documents/golden-networks (thanks, Steve!) If you do, what parameters do you use, or do you not dampen the golden networks at all? If you don't implement ripe-229, why not? If there is enough interest/response (i.e if anyone besides me feels this is a real operational issue currently and wants to deal with it), I'll work on compiling the responses and producing a report. Note: A *significant* number of networks appear to *not* follow ripe-229 guidelines at all. Thanks, Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC http://www.centergate.com Technology so advanced, even WE don't understand it(R)
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:06:12AM +1200, Bill Manning wrote: well RIPE is the RIR for Europe. RIPE-229 is, from my viewpoint, arbitrary and capricious. the root servers are -ONE- set of interesting servers. what about the web sites that point to these important documents? or the time servers, or my NOC monitoring machines? The idea of an Internet Registry stepping into giving routing advice is a leap of faith. An RIR can tell you what was delegated - but presuming to give advice on what is important for everyone that uses IP protocols is over the top. No. RIPE != RIPE NCC (RIR). This document is a product of the RIPE Routing-WG [1]. Read the reference. Fred [1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/index.html
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
Bill, I agree with your general line of reasoning, but would likely characterize RIPE as an RIR *and* operator forum... formulating and reviewing recommendations on operational matters make some sense as a result. As to the particular set of prefixes, there's a great question as to what criteria make a particular network important... one could easily come up with a list of extremely popular commercial sites (CNN, Amazon, etc.) which might be more noticeable if route damped for an hour. /John At 4:06 AM +1200 9/3/04, Bill Manning wrote: RIPE is the RIR for Europe. RIPE-229 is, from my viewpoint, arbitrary and capricious. the root servers are -ONE- set of interesting servers. what about the web sites that point to these important documents? or the time servers, or my NOC monitoring machines? The idea of an Internet Registry stepping into giving routing advice is a leap of faith. An RIR can tell you what was delegated - but presuming to give advice on what is important for everyone that uses IP protocols is over the top.
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:44:34AM -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote: See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/routeflap-damping.html and http://www.qorbit.net/documents/golden-networks (thanks, Steve!) If you do, what parameters do you use, or do you not dampen the golden networks at all? If you don't implement ripe-229, why not? Note: A *significant* number of networks appear to *not* follow ripe-229 guidelines at all. I think the real quesiton is: Based on the increased performance of routers these days.. most people running BGP aren't using a 2500 or AGS+ anymore, or at least not getting a full routing table on them. Is bgp dampening really necessary anymore? Obviously we should dampen people that flap a high number of times in an hour, but the vast majority of the internet operates in a state where dampening causes more pain than benifit, imho. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
OT: We have a winner!
Here are the results of my poll, enjoy. John Kerry Kerry: 25 George W. Bush: 14 Undecided: 4 Michael Badnarik: 3 Randy Bush: 2 Harold Stassen: 1 Michael Peroutka: 1 Bill the Cat: 1 Bugs Bunny: 1
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
Is bgp dampening really necessary anymore? Obviously we should dampen people that flap a high number of times in an hour, but the vast majority of the internet operates in a state where dampening causes more pain than benifit, imho. I agree with your line of reasoning. However, if you follow the RIPE document's guidelines [ included below for reference ]... I don't fundamentally have a problem with any of it. 4 flaps before you start dampening in a time window is a lot of flapping. Which means you are flapping that prefix throughout your internal network views as well * the number of distributed forwarding line cards you have, etc, etc. Its not necessarily a good thing to leave unmanaged, no matter how slightly. I don't know if everything needs to be stable for an hour when it takes 4 flaps to bring the wrath of dampening on it in the first place though. Maybe 15-20 minutes of stability on the high end (/24 and longer prefixes). If someone flapped every 30 minutes or so, while not ideal, its certainly not causing wide-spread network failures and its keeping you from blackholing a good chunk of their traffic. I think the idea harkens to a day when coming up with 100% of your sessions recalcs could bring your router down as traffic started to flow. So dampening helped you and everyone else stabilize before significant amounts of traffic started flowing through the 2500, 3600, AGS or whathaveyou. Clearly this isn't really the case anymore. If your router needs to protect itself from the big-bad-bgp sessions of its more powerful upstream routers, it can dampening more aggressively. Just my opinion, Deepak Jain AiNET --- 2.2 Description of recommended damping parameters Basically the recommended values do the following with harsher treatment for /24 and longer prefixes: * don't start damping until the 4th flap * /24 and longer prefixes: max=min outage 60 minutes * /22 and /23 prefixes: max outage 45 minutes; min outage of 30 minutes * all other prefix lengths: max outage 30 minutes; min outage 10 minutes If a specific damping implementation does not allow configuration of prefix-dependent parameters the least aggressive set should be used: * don't start damping before the 4th flap in a row * max outage 30 minutes; min outage 10 minutes Sample configurations for different vendors are referenced in Appendix A.2. These samples can be used as a basis for a configuration on other router platforms not listed there.
Re: OT: We have a winner!
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:09:54 EDT, Gary King said: Here are the results of my poll, enjoy. John Kerry Kerry: 25 George W. Bush: 14 Undecided: 4 Michael Badnarik: 3 Randy Bush: 2 Harold Stassen: 1 Michael Peroutka: 1 Bill the Cat: 1 Bugs Bunny: 1 The fact that 18% of the votes are in the tail of the curve after undecided probably speaks volumes about our profession pgp6FeMPhUcDT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: We have a winner!
It is a sad sad day for democracy when Randy Bush can get a 2:1 lead over Bill the Cat. (I'd worry about insulting Randy, but, he claims to have long since procmail'd me, so, I doubt he'll even see this) Owen P.S. Randy, if you do see this: No insult intended, only humor. Despite our differences, I do respect your contribution to the community. --On Thursday, September 2, 2004 3:09 PM -0400 Gary King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here are the results of my poll, enjoy. John Kerry Kerry: 25 George W. Bush: 14 Undecided: 4 Michael Badnarik: 3 Randy Bush: 2 Harold Stassen: 1 Michael Peroutka: 1 Bill the Cat: 1 Bugs Bunny: 1 -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgppFv4P46e9J.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Definition of P2P (was Feinstein)
Henry Linneweh wrote: Well there is another that I have noticed as well that is JXTA, originally from SUN Micro http://www.jxta.org/ Not to be raining on anyone else's parade here Are you saying JXTA actually has noticeable user population? (beyond a small blip) Pete
Re: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P
Erik Parker wrote: Speaking of which.. I wish P2P had been a little bit more organized when 9/11 happened.. Trying to watch the news online, download clips, or images for those few days following.. was nearly impossible. CNN/TimeWarner should recall that their entire cluster was destroyed and they had to move back to a simplified text only page that had nothing on it.. Likewise with Foxnews, but a little bit to a lesser extent. This is an instance of the good enough or best effort phenomenan. When it works 99% or 99.9% of the time, there is hardly any incentive to make it work 99.99% of the time because the observed level of service is good enough and the next event might never come. Prepareness usually has a cost associated and unless other benefits can be realized, it's easy to just ride through the rough time. If P2p was built upon a little bit, putting in protocols of trust (ala certificates/signed files, etc.) it could give F5 a run for its money and lower the cost drastically of certain network designs. You don't need trust on the protocol level to disseminate information which has a verifiable source (hash). This was discussed to death just a few days ago. Pete
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
If you don't implement ripe-229, why not? because the golden address space stuff is stupid
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
I don't fundamentally have a problem with any of it. 4 flaps before you start dampening in a time window is a lot of flapping. you may want to look at http://rip.psg.com/~randy/030226.apnic-flap.pdf randy
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
On 2-sep-04, at 23:58, Randy Bush wrote: If you don't implement ripe-229, why not? because the golden address space stuff is stupid Maybe so, but the logic seems rather irrefutable: - as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable than long ones - so we dampen long prefixes more aggressively - the root DNS servers tend to live in long prefixes - so we exclude the root DNS prefixes But then again, dampening really doesn't buy you much as it only applies to routes that are flapping beyond the link to the next AS. So if you have an instable link somewhere, you can't dampen that instability away yourself.
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
Hi Randy, On Sep 2, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote: If you don't implement ripe-229, why not? because the golden address space stuff is stupid OK. I'll bite... Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as described by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some combination of events that result in all of their announcements to you being dampened by you, your users can't get there. For grin's, let's say we're talking about .foo, one of the larger gtld's. You are absolutely right in suggesting that .foo has to get its act together. You may even tell your users that. But you'll be telling every single one of them, because every single one of them is going to attempt to resolve .foo domain names during the hour you have them dampened. And your cost in dealing with those support calls will probably outweigh the benefits of dampening .foo. I am polling networks so that I can get an idea of who handles their network this way, and who doesn't. I don't know if it is stupid or not, because I don't know enough about the subject yet. What I do know is that dampening these special networks with long prefixes already causes real-world problems. In many cases, the pain is felt by networks who may have a policy of not dampening, but are downstream of a major network that *does* dampen aggressively. Unless they're looking at the routing announcement and withdrawal data and analyzing it, they may never realize why their support infrastructure was overwhelmed. And Jared has a good point - modern BFR's *can* handle lots of flaps without breaking a sweat so maybe dampening aggressively, or even at all, may be an artifact whose time has gone. Notwithstanding the normal response of If what is on that network is broken, let them fix it which is tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face, saying it is stupid is more of a generalization and opinion, but doesn't really give reasons as to why it is stupid, so it really has no real value. What are the reasons you think (or know) it is *stupid*? And what is the solution technically, not to include let them fix it - I'm in the right, so I'm not going to do anything. Thanks /rlj
OT- need a new GSM provider
Now that ATT has followed T-Mobile's example by screwing the pooch on my cell phone billing, and I've flung yet another SIM-locked Motorola V600 out the window of yet another moving vehicle, and am about to enter into another year long you violated the agreement first small claims battle, I need a new GSM provider. I'm going to buy an unlocked tri-band GSM this time. Anybody had notable (good or bad) billing and/or customer service experiences with Voicestream or any other GSM provider with native coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area? (If you reply privately to me, I'll summarize back to the list.) -- Paul Vixie
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
because the golden address space stuff is stupid Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as described by the RIPE paper i don't care. if i had spare time on my hands, i would damp them more quickly for stupidity and greed. again, golden network space is a stupid idea. check out the dns for name to address mapping. randy
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
I've flung yet another SIM-locked Motorola V600 out the window of yet another moving vehicle littering am about to enter into another year long you violated the agreement first small claims battle i guess we value our time differently I'm going to buy an unlocked tri-band GSM this time. strongly recommended. or, as here in fiji, one can get a phone unlocked for a few bucks (couple of guys on a bench in a street stall). Anybody had notable (good or bad) billing and/or customer service experiences with Voicestream voicestream is t-mobile. telephant stupidity and error rate are proportional to size. hence, coverage and intl roaming with clue and good billing are not likely. but at least some branch of t-mobile and att have something to do with the internet, though i doubt that makes this thread on topic. randy
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:15:42 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But then again, dampening really doesn't buy you much as it only applies to routes that are flapping beyond the link to the next AS. So if you have an instable link somewhere, you can't dampen that instability away yourself. And this is the point: dampening can actually lead to decreased network stability and non-deterministic behavior. Granted, this behavior is exasperated by not deploying a common dampening policy across all ASes (which is the why RIPE-229 was written). This would not be as problematic if dampening could be applied to a path rather than a prefix, since an alternate could then be selected. But since this would require modifications to core aspects of BGP (and additional memory and processor requirements) it does not seem a likely solution.
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:47:43AM +1200, Randy Bush wrote: strongly recommended. or, as here in fiji, one can get a phone unlocked for a few bucks (couple of guys on a bench in a street stall). Triband phones mostly operate on 900/1800/1900 frequencies. There is a major US deployment of GSM on the cellular GSM 850 band. So if you are with a triband phone on anyone other than Tmobile (which uses only 1900gsm in the US), you will not get adequately covered. You want either a US centric triband for use in the US with ATT/cingular that operates on GSM 850/1800/1900 and then get a world triband on GSM 900/1800/1900 and swap sims in and out (trivially easy to get most gsm phones unlocked), OR you want a quadband like the moto v600 or treo 600 GSM which operate on 850/900/1800/1900. voicestream is t-mobile. telephant stupidity and error rate are proportional to size. hence, coverage and intl roaming with clue and good billing are not likely. Verizon now has a worldphone that will roam onto vodafone GSM internationally. Their rates don't appear to be too prohibitive. Though if you are going to be calling a lot while abroad, I suggest picking up an unlocked nokia 6310i and prepaid sims as you fly into airports. Put up a web page with your current phone number of choice. Also note due to fraud mitigation, most phones only allow you to call within the country you are in or back to the home country, all the while charging you an exhorbitant price. If you _really_ need to be connected at all times, get a sat phone. Some mobile gsm roaming charges are more expensive than a globalstar. /vijay
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: Now that ATT has followed T-Mobile's example by screwing the pooch on my cell phone billing, and I've flung yet another SIM-locked Motorola V600 out the window of yet another moving vehicle, and am about to enter into another year long you violated the agreement first small claims battle, I need a new GSM provider. I'm going to buy an unlocked tri-band GSM this time. Anybody had notable (good or bad) billing and/or customer service experiences with Voicestream or any other GSM provider with native coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area? Voicestream IS t-mobile, at least out here. -Dan (If you reply privately to me, I'll summarize back to the list.) -- Paul Vixie -- No mowore webooting!!! -Paul, 10-16-99, 10 PM Dan Mahoney Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
On 2 Sep 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: Now that ATT has followed T-Mobile's example by screwing the pooch on my cell phone billing, and I've flung yet another SIM-locked Motorola V600 out the window of yet another moving vehicle, and am about to enter into another year long you violated the agreement first small claims battle, Been there. The court saga for only few $$$ is usually not worth your time and any collection efforts for contested cellphone (and most other telco) charges and contracts can be stopped with couple properly written letters (its their job to go after you in court, not yours). I need a new GSM provider. I'm going to buy an unlocked tri-band GSM this time. Anybody had notable (good or bad) billing and/or customer service experiences with Voicestream or any other GSM provider with native coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area? http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml But as far as I know T-Mobile and ATT are the only two nationwide GSM providirs (Cingular too, but I hear it will soon be same as ATT). In my opinion GSM is really overrated and not seriously well deployed in US, consider CDMA providers, at least internet access would be faster (and typically cheaper) if you're using smartphone. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:03:26AM +1200, Randy Bush wrote: I don't fundamentally have a problem with any of it. 4 flaps before you start dampening in a time window is a lot of flapping. you may want to look at http://rip.psg.com/~randy/030226.apnic-flap.pdf I've been wondering what the net results would be if one dampened aggressively but only for a max of 7-15 mins. Might that allow for the networks to be properly penalized yet provide the users a minimum amount of time to recover once the prefix is stable? - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:54:48PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: In my opinion GSM is really overrated and not seriously well deployed in US, consider CDMA providers, at least internet access would be faster (and typically cheaper) if you're using smartphone. That used to be true, but has fast fallen away out here in Cali. Motorcycle racetracks are out in the boondocks, and are often the last places to get good cell coverage. About a two years ago GSM phones started having better coverage than CDMA even at those locations, at which point I gave up and went GSM ;-) -- Joe Rhett Senior Geek Meer.net
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
Way off topic, hit delete now. On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:09:27PM +, vijay gill wrote: Triband phones mostly operate on 900/1800/1900 frequencies. There is a major US deployment of GSM on the cellular GSM 850 band. So if you are with a triband phone on anyone other than Tmobile (which uses only 1900gsm in the US), you will not get adequately covered. You want either a US centric triband for use in the US with ATT/cingular that operates on GSM 850/1800/1900 and then get a world triband on GSM 900/1800/1900 and swap sims in and out (trivially easy to get most gsm phones unlocked) I've had no drama at all going internation with T-Mobile service, using an unlocked (nokiafree.org) ATT 6310i phone. if you are going to be calling a lot while abroad, I suggest picking up an unlocked nokia 6310i and prepaid sims as you fly into airports. Put up a web page with your current phone number of choice. Ugh. Much more convenient to just carry your phone with you ;-) Also note due to fraud mitigation, most phones only allow you to call within the country you are in or back to the home country, all the while charging you an exhorbitant price. Um, sorry but I've never seen this. I used to world-roam on ATT, and now I do it with T-Mobile and never had any such drama. Kind of hard to place a call in Europe without calling the next country over ;-) ATT used to rip me a new one for intl-intl calls, but t-mobiles rates are roughly half that and apparently do pass-thru charges for calls which don't leave a given providers network...? Anyway, I spent nearly a month in Spain this spring and my cell phone was my only contact, for both voice and many long hours of GPRS internet access, and the bill was only $890 or something similar. (I had a few 2.5k phone bills on similar length trips to England while using ATT...) -- Joe Rhett Senior Geek Meer.net
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
On 02 Sep 2004 22:29:27 +, Paul Vixie wrote: Now that ATT has followed T-Mobile's example by screwing the pooch on my cell phone billing, and I've flung yet another SIM-locked Motorola V600 out the window of yet another moving vehicle, and am about to enter into another year long you violated the agreement first small claims battle, I need a new GSM provider. I'm going to buy an unlocked tri-band GSM this time. Anybody had notable (good or bad) billing and/or customer service experiences with Voicestream or any other GSM provider with native coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area? I have had nothing but terrific customer support from T-Mobile in the Boston area. They even answer the phone!Their coverage is spotty in many areas I have travelled around the U.S., but it is improving and you can set your handset to auto-seek an available network. (They have reciprocal roaming agreements with ATT and Cingular.). However in large parts of Maine there is NO service anywhere. Voicestream was bought by T-Mobile. You can get unlocked handsets off eBay; I bought two Motorola triband units for $80 each. Notes from my T-Mobile rep: - OUTDATED HANDSETS: -Nokia 8890: some problems -Motorola Timeport series (all except one model is triband including L7089). Larger than V series.P280 is triband but has problems -Siemens one triband model. Problems. -[JR also finds: MOT P8097 Ericson R520] - Meg says can buy in aftermarket unlocked triband (or T-Mobile/Voicestream) Ericson T68m or T68i, Mot P7389 Timeport or L7089 (buy on eBay) My daughter will take that Motorola V600! (She nags me daily to buy one for her.) Jeffrey Race
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
At 06:04 PM 09/02/04 -0700, Joe Rhett wrote: Also note due to fraud mitigation, most phones only allow you to call within the country you are in or back to the home country, all the while charging you an exhorbitant price. Um, sorry but I've never seen this. I used to world-roam on ATT, and now I do it with T-Mobile and never had any such drama. ditto. color me clueless, but ATT worked once upon a time, and T-Mobile works quite well for me now.
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 06:23:31PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: At 06:04 PM 09/02/04 -0700, Joe Rhett wrote: Also note due to fraud mitigation, most phones only allow you to call within the country you are in or back to the home country, all the while charging you an exhorbitant price. Um, sorry but I've never seen this. I used to world-roam on ATT, and now I do it with T-Mobile and never had any such drama. ditto. color me clueless, but ATT worked once upon a time, and T-Mobile works quite well for me now. This is more of an issue in SE asia in my experience than in europe. /vijay
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
voicestream is tmobile everywhere On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 16:14, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: Now that ATT has followed T-Mobile's example by screwing the pooch on my cell phone billing, and I've flung yet another SIM-locked Motorola V600 out the window of yet another moving vehicle, and am about to enter into another year long you violated the agreement first small claims battle, I need a new GSM provider. I'm going to buy an unlocked tri-band GSM this time. Anybody had notable (good or bad) billing and/or customer service experiences with Voicestream or any other GSM provider with native coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area? Voicestream IS t-mobile, at least out here. -Dan (If you reply privately to me, I'll summarize back to the list.) -- Paul Vixie -- No mowore webooting!!! -Paul, 10-16-99, 10 PM Dan Mahoney Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org --- Thornton Cierra Group www.cierragroup.com Efficient Licensing and Consulting
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
voicestream is tmobile everywhere i forgot to mention that there is a bit of a boom-giggle in there. t-mumble paid about $3,400 per customer to buy voicescream. randy
Re: OT- need a new GSM provider
vijay gill wrote: Also note due to fraud mitigation, most phones only allow you to call within the country you are in or back to the home country, all the while charging you an exhorbitant price. At 06:04 PM 09/02/04 -0700, Joe Rhett wrote: Um, sorry but I've never seen this. I used to world-roam on ATT, and now I do it with T-Mobile and never had any such drama. On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:42:57AM +, vijay gill wrote: This is more of an issue in SE asia in my experience than in europe. Sorry, again YMMV but I had no trouble with this in either Taiwan or Singapore, when I was responsible for support in those countries, Japan and Korea combined. I never saw a problem calling between any of those. Not saying it isn't so, just saying I never had this trouble me-self ;-) -- Joe Rhett Senior Geek Meer.net
