David Charlap wrote:
>
> I think an OC-192 network using 56K modems in the core would be a pretty
> obvious giveaway as well.
Yes! Sheesh. Nobody uses K56Flex any more.
Peter E. Fry
Not necessarily. Don't forget that exchangecolo is in Hunters Point:)
so its not totally unusual for people to put their networks in the hood.
:)
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Charlap wrote:
>
> I think an OC-192 network using 56K modems in the core would be a pretty
> obvious giveaway as we
I think an OC-192 network using 56K modems in the core would be a pretty
obvious giveaway as well.
-- David
Rowland, Alan D wrote:
> Compton, CA, US and Sealand would be the giveaways.
>
> Scott Weeks wrote:
>>
>> No, he's not for real. It's a satire in the likes of Bandy Rush and such.
>>
And my question is that a real oc768 or a Sears oc768. Like Cisco, sure
its a gig E port but oh wait, you wanted to use it for more than 200
mb/s?
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, blitz wrote:
>
> I believe many are working on it, but I haven't seen/heard of much progress
> since I learned of this,
I believe many are working on it, but I haven't seen/heard of much progress
since I learned of this, some 4 years ago now..
Add to that the bandwidth glut with all the DWDM and I guess they've got
breathing room...
At 09:34 7/30/02 -0700, you wrote:
>I believe Junpier does have a OC-768 inter
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Dr. Mosh
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OC-768 availability?
>
>
>
> I believe Junpier does have a OC-768 interface under
ECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OC-768 availability?
No, he's not for real. It's a satire in the likes of Bandy Rush and such.
Children need to have their fun...
scott
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Williams, Ken wrote:
:
: hah 2621 rockin oc-192 are you for real?
:
: -
I believe Junpier does have a OC-768 interface under testing if I'm not
mistaken...
Signal received 0. Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>
> --On Monday, July 29, 2002 21:32:02 -0400 blitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Seriously, I don't see OC768 coming online en masse
--On Monday, July 29, 2002 21:32:02 -0400 blitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, I don't see OC768 coming online en masse until they get the
> kinks worked out of optical switching. The transit times are so short
> thru the innards, in the order of picoseconds, that electronics is way
>
I heard that as well, as well as holographic processing...can't remember
who however, but Lucent (or whoever they are this week) or Nortel
(presently circling the drain) come to mind..
At 19:53 7/29/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Wasn't one of the major switch companies working on a system of bubbles.
HP was working on a "buble" switching device, I think the project's
dead.
John
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 07:53:43PM -0700, Scott Granados wrote:
>
> Wasn't one of the major switch companies working on a system of bubbles.
>I'm not sure if it was foundry or Juniper or who but
> someone was
You know, I'd be interested in one of the cisco 1605's with an oc48 wicc
for home use. If you've got a spaire. I only want a /29's worth of ip
space but be sure that you announce it to all your peers and make
everyone accept the /29 even if its tagged no-export. Better yet, I'd
like each i
Wasn't one of the major switch companies working on a system of bubbles.
I'm not sure if it was foundry or Juniper or who but
someone was trying to route packets or rather switch packets in a device
at high speed by using bubbles to reflect and switch the light instead
of converting to ele
Not a problem, available at Disneyland, visit the gift shop while u
r there for those OC768 card for the cisco 2621.
While u are there if u could pick me up one those DAVE license
plates, I'd appreciate it!
Sorry all I couldnt resist ;-)
At 16:10 -0700 7/29/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>H
Seriously, I don't see OC768 coming online en masse until they get the
kinks worked out of optical switching. The transit times are so short thru
the innards, in the order of picoseconds, that electronics is way too slow
to perform such mundane tasks like determining where a packet is supposed
No, he's not for real. It's a satire in the likes of Bandy Rush and such.
Children need to have their fun...
scott
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Williams, Ken wrote:
:
: hah 2621 rockin oc-192 are you for real?
:
: -Original Message-
: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
hah 2621 rockin oc-192 are you for real?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OC-768 availability?
Hello,
I am currently running a network of cisco 2621s with the OC-192 NM for my
ups
17 matches
Mail list logo
