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
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
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
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
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
[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,
