On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, just me wrote:
> Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
> abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
And you find this unusual for Verisign/Network Solutions?
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, __ wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Mike (meuon) Harrison wrote:
>
> > In the middle of all of this talk re: Cogent and such,
> > they apparantly spent some $$$ somewhere and made our
> > test connection a whole lot better.
>
> This
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, __ _ wrote:
> Ehh...something isn't quite right... I managed '573 kBytes/sec' on a
> 1.5/384 consumer ADSL... 573 kBytes/sec is > 1.5mbit by a good margin :)
> Though it is a nice ego boost LOL :) Running the test again as I'm typing
> this message so we'll
In the middle of all of this talk re: Cogent and such,
they apparantly spent some $$$ somewhere and made our
test connection a whole lot better.
In a nutshell, we did this a month ago and it stank.
Bursty, high and variable latencies.. etc..
Apparently they fixed something.
Yesterday in our
Sean:
> the marketing maps in Boardwatch are meaningful.
ROFLMAO!! - I needed a good laugh (I'm the NOC babysitter for this round
of Holidays.. looking at a boring 4 days. )
On the semi-productive almost on-topic side:
Are there any GOOD maps out there? I don't have a coo
> So anyone have any insight as to who will be around within 3 years?
probably us, and people like us:
We fail the 'dog and pony show' aspect...
Our place is functional and comfortable, not a futuristic showplace.
Our business is not only cash flow positive, but EVERYTHING is paid for
> Are you talking about burstiness in time or by ip address ?
>
> If the former, do you have statistics on that ?
Over time.. It seems to have good moments and bad moments.
I'll be setting up smokeping next for latency testing.
No real data yet.. I'm kinda new to having to do this kind of thin
Several of the people that ran speed tests asked for
results.
It's not a majorly scientific test, lots of variables
of web browsers and available BW between any two points.
http://speedy.higherbandwidth.net/resultsallip.cgi
(grouped by IP address)
and
http://speedy.higherbandwidth.net/res
> >It also appears to block Gnutella and similar protocols.
>
> You should never sign an IP access agreement that doesn't give you access to
> the filtering rules that affect your traffic. Ideally, you should strongly
We have not signed a thing. If I even attempted to explain the complex
p
I am testing a Cogent 100mbps connection with a simple
web based speed test check..
Can I beg those of you on real high bandwidth connections
various places on the 'net to run the speed test check on:
http://speedy.higherbandwidth.net
It logs your IP and speed.. I am trying to determine
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Steve Francis wrote:
> We just saw RTT times to a bunch of sites (yale, ucsb, cisco, yahoo,
> mci) all go up to 3 second RTT with lots of loss.
We're on UUnet... in Chattanooga to Atlanta and it looks good now.
mtr -c 10 --report www.mci.com
HOST
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Dan Lockwood wrote:
> Does anyone have a list of criteria that is collected when a customer
> brings equipment into a colocation facility? Things may include make
> and model, number of power supplies, serial number, etc. Any comments
> on this type of operation are greatly
12 matches
Mail list logo
