On 19 Sep 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) about Cognet as a transit
> > provider in New York?
>
> No. But we (ISC) are using them in San Francisco (at 200 Paul Street) and
> they've been fine.
They seem to have above-normal congestion at their peering
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:35:41 PDT, "Michael L. Barrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> policy allows them to keep their service level consistent. One-offs can end
> up being expensive in the long run. "If I do it for you, everyone will want
> the same thing!"
Actually, that would be OK - what they're
There are many of us selling a cogent service, or, in some cases a
cogent + extras service, in many cities.
You may want to consider said people when you want cheap-ass bandwidth,
but need some flexibility.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Michael L. Barrow wrote:
>
> > wouldn't affect anyone but us. T
> wouldn't affect anyone but us. They admitted we needed it and couldn't get
> the affect any other way, but just couldn't do it. "That's not the product
we
> offer."
Yeah -- those types of things suck, but from their perspective this kind of
policy allows them to keep their service level consis
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, batz wrote:
> From a security perspective, the recommendations in this report are
> the same things that have been advocated for the last decade. In fact
> it looks like many of these recommendations could have been culled from the
> various vulnerability assessment report te
At 6:03 PM -0400 2002/09/19, batz wrote:
> Well, I think the consensus was just handed to you in the form of a national
> mandate. In fact, I think this looks like an excellent premise for
> a business plan for a security consulting and managed services firm.
Can you say "Counterpane
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
:Is the telephone security model better than the Internet security model?
:It depends on who you ask. They both have interesting security issues.
:Unfortunately, a lot of it is based on perception on both sides, and only
:a little on fact.
Indeed, I am
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:35:48 +0300 (IDT), Arie Vayner wrote:
>Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) about Cognet as a transit
>provider in New York?
>They seem to be too cheap.
>
>Arie
We use them. They work, they're reliable, they keep their promises, and
their NOC is incredibly
> Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) about Cognet as a transit
> provider in New York?
No. But we (ISC) are using them in San Francisco (at 200 Paul Street) and
they've been fine.
--
Paul Vixie
Hi
Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) about Cognet as a transit
provider in New York?
They seem to be too cheap.
Arie
I think you need to read a little more carefully and
also see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q262631
Which is linked to the article you mention.
The only real downside is that you can't change the "level-1" list
at all unless you use Outlook 2K in and Exchange server e
Don't know the history of this input but MS is in the process of an auto
security update for ALL XP machines worldwide. Might have something to
do with this behavior.
On a side note, it kills ALL E-mail attachments (MS files et al) and
significant web content. Security vulnerability in XP. As I
We're seeing bad throughput via http from both IP addresses we resolve for
this host (207.46.235.150 and 207.46.235.162). Connections from three
unrelated AS all with T1 or better are giving throughput in tests with
wget around 28-64Kbps). Each has a unqiue path to MS.
One of our clients reports
13 matches
Mail list logo
