Re: RTT from NY to New Delhi?
His subject says New York. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Justin M. Streiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog nanog@merit.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:33 AM Subject: Re: RTT from NY to New Delhi? On Wed, 16 May 2007, Joe Maimon wrote: What should I expect? I am seeing ~350 from a vendor provided mpls cloud to a site in Sukhrali Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana, India Where are you running your tests from? USA (east or west coast)? Europe? Elsewhere in Asia? jms
Re: ISP CALEA compliance
I believe its everything. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jason Frisvold [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Nikos Mouat [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:03 PM Subject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance On 5/10/07, Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're not offering VoIP services, your life may be easier as you will only need to intercept the data. Depending on your environment you could do this with something like port-mirroring, or something more advanced. There are a number of folks that offer TTP (Trusted third-provider) services. Verisign comes to mind. But using a TTP doesn't mean you can hide behind them. Compliance is ultimately your (the company that gets the subponea) responsibility. Here's a question that's come up around here. Does a CALEA intercept include hairpining or is it *only* traffic leaving your network? I'm of the opinion that a CALEA intercept request includes every bit of traffic being sent or received by the targeted individual, but there is strong opposition here that thinks only internet-related traffic counts. - Jared (IANAL!) -- Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.godshell.com
Re: ISP CALEA compliance
I recommend Kris Twomey... lokt.net - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:36 AM Subject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance Nikos Mouat wrote: I have interpretted CALEA to apply only to providers of VOICE service, be it VOIP or traditional, however I was told this morning point blank by the FCC that CALEA most definitely applies to all ISPs that provide internet access at speeds over 200k. That, and the definition of ISP, are still a bit fuzzy... [EMAIL PROTECTED], for instance, has had a LOT of chatter about that, but WISPA's staff attorney believes that small wireless ISPs are required to be CALEA-compliant. (WISPA is a trade association for wireless ISPs.) If small ISPs have to be compliant, it's probably safe to assume big ISPs are too. :) http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ is the list archive - there's a lot of noise in there, but a fair amount of signal (start in February 2007 or so, and work your way up). There's also forms you're apparently supposed to fill out (FCC Form 445, and a CALEA compliance plan due next week). As always your friendly attorney knows better than I do. David Smith MVN.net
Re: ISP CALEA compliance
Join the wireless list at wispa.org and the wisp list at part-15.org They've been discussing it quite a bit. There's also a FAQ at wispa.org - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Nikos Mouat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:44 AM Subject: ISP CALEA compliance I have interpretted CALEA to apply only to providers of VOICE service, be it VOIP or traditional, however I was told this morning point blank by the FCC that CALEA most definitely applies to all ISPs that provide internet access at speeds over 200k. The FCC said that routers must send a copy of all packets to and from a selected IP to law enforcement in real time from gateway routers. I've seen very little CALEA related traffic on this list which reinforced my belief that it did not apply to data providers. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks. -nm
Re: ISP CALEA compliance
I believe if you have any equipment in the process at all, you're to be CALEA compliant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:23 PM Subject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance On Thu, 10 May 2007, Patrick Muldoon wrote: We've been under the impression that is *all* data. So for us, things like PPPoE Sessions, just putting a tap/span port upstream of the aggregation router will not work as you would miss any traffic going from USER A - USER B, if they where on the same aggregation device. Since the Intercept has to be invisible to the parties being tapped, you can't route their traffic back out and then in either, since the tap would change the flow.In that regard, we've been upgrading our older NPE's to newer ones in order to support SII, All the while I keep having something a co-worker said stuck in my head. CALEA - Consultant And Lawyer Enrichment Act :) If you are doing PPPOE over another carrier's ATM network, are you really a facilities-based provider? Or is the CALEA compliance the responsibility of the underlying ATM network provider to give LEA access to the ATM VC of the subscriber under surviellance?
Re: Open WiFi Access Point BCP's???
I'd look at Mikrotik. There's a listserv at part-15.org and a web forum at mikrotik.com - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Open WiFi Access Point BCP's??? Anyone have any recommendations for BCPs or software suggestions on running an open community-based access point (or network)? Think: an urban area where potentially lots of people could be popping on and off with little authentication. These seem to be pretty prevalent around Panera's and other things -- I just don't know what they are doing to manage (rather that prevent) P2P and Spam, etc uses. Pointers very appreciated!! Thanks, DJ
Re: PGE on data centre cooling..
Myth Busters proved that turning the lights off is more cost efficient than leaving them on. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:41 PM Subject: Re: PGE on data centre cooling.. Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:31:53 -0700 From: Jay Hennigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PGE on data centre cooling.. John Kinsella wrote: I sorta wonder why the default is lights on, actually...I used to always love walking into dark datacenters and seeing the banks of GSRs (always thought they had good Blink) and friends happily blinking away. Consider the power consumption per square foot of the gear in a typical data center, then add in the power needed to keep it cool. I suspect that the cost of energy to keep the lights on will be down in the noise. In addition, 1) if the lighting is 'already there', figure the cost of re-wiring to 'sensor-based' switching. The parts aren't terribly expensive, but consider the amount of labor required. Particularly if the desired switched lighting 'zones' don't match the existing circuit wiring. Don't forget the maintenance costs, either. You're probably going to have to replace bulbs more frequently -- on/off cycles _are_ added 'stress' on bulbs. 2) if it is new construction, figure the differential cost in parts, labor, *and* maintenance, of sensor-based lighting switching. This is lower than 1), but still 'non-trivial'. Now, estimate how much energy will be saved, and how long it will take for that savings to pay back the cost of the investment. Secondary savings from reduction in HVAC load? How many KW/sq.ft. does the gear eat?vs. how many watts/sq.ft for lighting? ['Office grade' lighting is under 2 watts/sq.ft. (and may be significantly less) using conventional fluorscents, high-intensity halogen can be lower. 'Residential level' general lighting can easily be under 1 watt/sq.ft.] It's not like you're going to reduce the load enough to shut down one of the chillers. :)
OT: Cingular web\post master
I tried filling out a supplier form on Cingular's web site, but it bounced because of a bad email. Unfortunately, postmaster and webmaster also bounce. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
RE: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property)
Almost ALL providers should be multihomed. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of virendra rode // Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:26 AM To: NANOG Subject: Re: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frank Bulk wrote: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=1310151 Is this a normal thing for Level 3 to do, cut off small, responsive providers? Frank - Just curious, should small responsive providers should be multi-homed? regards, /virendra -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF+XOApbZvCIJx1bcRAtkwAJ9vNak3F8FlCf9VDycf6IlAr445nACg59kB w2OWAGdchd2XQyxxgZWQaug= =Yb1+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property)
Some locations are just too cost prohibitive to multihome, but that really is a select few. Few places are out of the reach of a couple wireless hops back to civilization. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wil Schultz Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:56 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property) Almost ALL? Any company, or any person for that matter, that relies on their Internet connectivity for their lively hood should be multihomed. -wil On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost ALL providers should be multihomed. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of virendra rode // Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:26 AM To: NANOG Subject: Re: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frank Bulk wrote: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=1310151 Is this a normal thing for Level 3 to do, cut off small, responsive providers? Frank - Just curious, should small responsive providers should be multi- homed? regards, /virendra -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF+XOApbZvCIJx1bcRAtkwAJ9vNak3F8FlCf9VDycf6IlAr445nACg59kB w2OWAGdchd2XQyxxgZWQaug= =Yb1+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: The Chicken or the Egg.
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222 4.2.2 is the allocation to ISPs section; therefore 4.2.2.2 would be a part of that. It states under that multihomed section that if you can demonstrate efficient usage of a /23, you can receive a /22 from ARIN. --Mike _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of list account Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: The Chicken or the Egg. Well the subject describes my frustration. We are a small ISP that currently has 6 /24s. Over the last year we have inked some deals for some hotels and apartment complexes that would push us over the required /20 to get our own allocation. Many of these locations are new sites nearing their completion so with in 90 to 120 days. The first 6 locations complete over the next 2 to 6 weeks and the vendor that handle the hospitality networks want their addresses now. The road block has been that ARIN wants us to get the remaining /24s from our upstream, assign them to our customers then get our /20, then renumber out network. Many of these hotels are big chains and they don't seem to want deal with this not to mention it makes us look even smaller. In my limited experience ARIN seems to not want to work with the small operator. Maybe I got someone on a bad day or maybe I am using the wrong verbage. Would the 4.2.1.4 http://4.2.1.4/ Slow Start apply in my case? What about the 4.2.6 for Cable Operators? It seems kind of unfair, if I read this correctly, that they gain IPs biased on the number of homes that could purchase service. We have a WiSP network with a very large foot print where I am using most of my address space. I wan't to minimize renumbering my customers. To add to this I want to be portable. Since ATT has bought BellSouth my upstream provider is now declaring war on me.But this is a rant for another time.
RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
Free WIFI is just a joke anyway. Most of the time when someone is referring to wanting or providing free WIFI, they don't really know what they're talking about. People like free and people dislike being tethered, thus all of the buzz around free WIFI. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:45 AM To: Joe Abley Cc: Todd Vierling; Roland Dobbins; NANOG list Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd) On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:15:30 EDT, Joe Abley said: This conversation has suddenly become very weird. I suggest you go and spend a year on Niue before you decide to make claims that anywhere in the US is as remote (and, for the record, there are no cables which land in Niue, fat or otherwise). We're specifically talking about the connection from where the end of the fat pipe is, be it a fiberoptic or copper or a satellite dish, and where the user is. Craig Mountain: http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=37.0836lon=-80.3281datum=nad27u=4lay er=DRGsize=ls=50 About 2 square miles, almost all trees. All the houses are marked (the little squares). How many towers do you need? How many are economically viable, especially for free wifi? http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8z=12ll=37.198612,-80.407562spn=0.19115 6,0.395164t=hom=1 To be fair, you can probably get away with hand-waving away trying to provide coverage to all the green areas - they're forested because they're too steep for either farming or building houses on, so it isn't like you will be cutting off a lot of people. about it not being there (hi, Rich!). Do the 70k people that are easy to cover in Montgomery County have free wifi? If it's so easy, why not? It's hard to find somebody who will underwrite the cost of free wifi. You can't even ask the local government to do it, because they respond with But we got everybody online on copper a *decade* ago. http://www.bev.net/about/history.php (That page dates back to 2002 or so - we got out of the ISDN business around then. Uptake rates are even higher now) We wired the town up. We're not feeling real motivated to un-wire it. Somebody wants to come in and get bits to that last 10% that none of the dozen ISPs with presences in the county have found economical ways to reach, they're welcome to do so.
RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
I'd say the reason cable is more popular is because most DSL is ran by the incumbent telcos and you can't get good anything from those guys. DSL is a better technology, but the companies doing it suck. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:05 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd) On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote: sell you 100/24 vdsl2 for around 80euro a month. 100/10 over CAT5 ethernet (and also 100/100) is available here in Sweden for around $35+tax in quite a lot of places. Weirdly enough it's more commonly available in places where the real estate owner has a harder time renting out apartments, because it actually brings people over who wouldn't normally considering living there. Competetive advantage. Real estate owner will pay up front for the CAT5 cabling and will then bring in one or more ISPs to provide IP connectivity and switches (well, a lot of different business models are available). Real estate owner invests a few hundred dollars and gets more apartments rented out, the ISP has to bring fiber into the building/area and can then reach a lot of people with highspeed connections that give high take rates. Some ISPs that prefer CAT5 do so because of less maintenance and that the VDSL(2) equipment is actually more expensive than CAT5 cabling+ethernet switches in a lot of the cases. I think it's weird that cable(coax) is the premium service in the US, because here it's considered inferior to DSL, and it's the service you get when you don't care about performance and quality. Just the other month there was some kind of disruption on the cable system where I live, and when I called in to report it they first asked me to go check with my neighbors (beside me, and both upstairs and downstairs) before they would even take my fault report. Then they had to coordinate a time when both I and my upstair neighbor could be home from work at the same time so the technician could try to find the fault. Ended up me having basically no TV (almost unwatchable) or Telephony (cable modem wouldnt link up) for 10 days. I'm glad I had my internet connectivity via other means. I'll take star topology all days of the week, thank you. So to sum it all up, my take on the US problems is that there is too little competition in the market place. LLUB has brought a lot of competition into the marketplace here and to compete with the LLUB offerings, some other ISPs go directly with infrastructure to the curb or even directly into homes in some of the cases. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
WiMAX is minimally different than most current wireless broadband equipment. Its main selling point is higher scale, thus lower cost. Its improved RF capabilities result in maybe 10 db. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alexander Harrowell Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:39 AM To: Daniel Senie Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd) On 3/13/07, Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do longer-range wireless technologies like WiMAX potentially impact the equation? If cell phone companies have not covered an area, what makes you think WiMAX is a magic solution? How well does WiMAX work to cover hilly, forested, rural terrain? Who will pay to put up enough towers to provide coverage? Will municipalities unhappy about the look of towers consider this a reasonable alternative to running services along telephone poles that already exist? If the cell carriers haven't found it economic to provide coverage, why would the WiMAX provider? WiMAX should work very well for hilly and forested terrain - it splits the signal across any multipath that may be around, so the more the merrier (within reason).
RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
Lower frequencies such as TV whitespace and 700 MHz will greatly help the WISP of today serve areas where current wireless technologies cannot due to frequency. WiMAX will have very little coverage advantage over current wireless technologies. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Vierling Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:15 PM To: Roland Dobbins Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd) On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are other technologies better suited to rural deployment, such as satellite, powerline, some cable, or even re-use of the previous generation's ADSL gear once metro areas are upgraded. Or something like WiMAX? Depends on how rural the area is. Some parts of the US have problematic terrain and *very* sparse population; there, the cost would far outweigh the subscriber uptake. Should someone want bandwidth in such an area, powerline or satellite are probably better choices. (I don't mention cell-based wireless technologies, because the providers in that market space haven't truly awakened to the possibility of fixed cell termination sites for broadband-type access. That is generally seen as a congestion threat, not an opportunity, by the carriers.) -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
Current wireless technologies have no problem with the rural aspect, just the hills and foliage. Get on a tall enough tower in a remote enough area, you can have quite a range on your wireless coverage. I'm not sure of the cost of a cell tower setup, but the cost outfitting a tower for WISP use on 3 bands is under $10k. --Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Senie Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd) At 01:33 PM 3/13/2007, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Senie wrote: As with the deployment of telephone service a century ago, the ubiquitious availability of broadband service will require government involvement in the form of fees on some and subsidies for others (might be a good use for the funds Massachusetts is trying to extract from Verizon for property tax on telephone poles, I suppose). Otherwise, we'll see the broadband providers continue to cherry pick the communities to service, and leave others in the digital dustbowl. Various rural phone companies aside, the majority of this was accomplished in the U.S. via a regulated monopoly, and in many other countries via a government-owned regulated monopoly. And today we have unregulated monopolies in many communities, and unregulated duopolies in the rest. Are we better off without regulation? That's unclear. Do you believe that's necessary and/or desirable in order to make broadband ubiquitous? A universal service charge could be applied to all bills, with the funds going to subsidize rural areas. Even the electrical utilities have this kind of thing going on... there's an energy conservation charge on my electric bill that is used to pool funds that are used for energy efficiency projects. The solar panels on my roof were partially paid for by a grant from such funds. There are alternatives to close control of monopolies using mechanisms of this sort. If it's in the best interests of the country to provide universal access, then such a mechanism will likely be the way. How do longer-range wireless technologies like WiMAX potentially impact the equation? If cell phone companies have not covered an area, what makes you think WiMAX is a magic solution? How well does WiMAX work to cover hilly, forested, rural terrain? Who will pay to put up enough towers to provide coverage? Will municipalities unhappy about the look of towers consider this a reasonable alternative to running services along telephone poles that already exist? If the cell carriers haven't found it economic to provide coverage, why would the WiMAX provider? It all comes back to economics. If there's an interest in providing universal access, then somehow there will have to be financial incentives for less populated areas to be covered. Verizon, Comcast, ATT and the like have no hearts and thus will not cover rural areas out of the goodness of those non-existent hearts, unless there's a financial incentive to make it worthwhile.
RE: FCC on wifi at hotel
Fixed wireless or cell wireless? I wouldn't touch cell, but most every conference I've been to (granted they are WISP conferences) has had a fixed wireless backhaul. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brandon Galbraith Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:42 PM To: Steve Meuse Cc: Jared Mauch; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: FCC on wifi at hotel On 2/28/07, Steve Meuse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/28/07, Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf I do suggest reading this. They can not legally bar you from using the devices. They can charge you outrageous fees to get to/from the MMR or telco demarc and make it prohibitively expensive. Right, a wifi that goes nowhere isn't terribly useful :) You could always get to upstream via wireless. -brandon
Chicago Sprint - Global Crossing
Does anyone else notice any issues? [EMAIL PROTECTED] mhammett]# tcptraceroute 63.175.151.3 5060 Selected device eth0, address 205.218.65.34, port 51739 for outgoing packets Tracing the path to 63.175.151.3 on TCP port 5060, 30 hops max 1 205.138.198.193 2.686 ms 0.404 ms 1.042 ms 2 ge5-1.br03.chc01.pccwbtn.net (63.218.5.97) 0.444 ms 0.504 ms 0.411 ms 3 * * * 4 ge0-2-0-1000M.ar1.CHI2.gblx.net (67.17.107.193) 0.885 ms 0.531 ms 0.464 ms 5 sprint-1.ar1.CHI2.gblx.net (64.212.107.82) 26.533 ms 9.346 ms 54.376 ms 6 sl-bb22-chi-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.90) 112.045 ms 209.869 ms 202.905 ms 7 sl-bb20-roa-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.37) 15.198 ms 13.906 ms 32.054 ms 8 sl-gw20-roa-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.17.190) 104.213 ms 36.510 ms 34.817 ms 9 sl-essex-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.151.22) 53.096 ms 75.561 ms 51.180 ms 10 * * * 11 voip.essex1.com (63.175.151.3) [closed] 35.588 ms 69.591 ms * This is normally a 5 ms traceroute.
AboveNet and Level(3) in Chicago
Can anyone confirm if AboveNet and Level(3) have added or improved peering in Chicago? I don't have a previous traceroute to compare to, but a new one from my ISP network singlehomed on AboveNet to a server with several carriers including Level(3) seems to suggest that. Traceroutes always included Level(3), but now they're a few hops shorter and maybe 20 - 30 ms faster. Mike HammettIntelligent Computing Solutionshttp://www.ics-il.com
