Re: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-10 Thread Alexander Harrowell
"Centralised switching guarantees QOS!" Keep saying it and it might be true! On 11/9/06, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Chris L. Morrow wrote: >> Working with 2 other carriers on a similar issue, response I rec'd was >> congestion due to automated political dialers

RE: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-09 Thread Sean Donelan
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Chris L. Morrow wrote: Working with 2 other carriers on a similar issue, response I rec'd was congestion due to automated political dialers. Not sure if I believe that or not... you'd think they'd have systems monitoring that and trimming down the 'fat'? or can they do that

Re: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-08 Thread Thomas Beecher
The problems stemmed from Verizon having some serious SS7 database problems with their interconnects to other carriers. The big one was Level3 , but XO confirmed they had problems too. I highly doubt this had anything to do with political dialers, but it was definitely caused by Verizon, and

Re: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-07 Thread virendra rode //
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris L. Morrow wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Wallace Keith wrote: > >> Working with 2 other carriers on a similar issue, response I rec'd was >> congestion due to automated political dialers. Not sure if I believe >> that or not... > > you'd thin

Re: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-07 Thread Steve Sobol
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Jared Mauch wrote: > A network error created problems Monday for callers trying to make local > calls to Moreno Valley and may have affected other Inland communities, a > Verizon spokesman said. I didn't hear anything about this yesterday, and I work at an office in the Inla

RE: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-07 Thread Chris L. Morrow
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Wallace Keith wrote: > > Working with 2 other carriers on a similar issue, response I rec'd was > congestion due to automated political dialers. Not sure if I believe > that or not... you'd think they'd have systems monitoring that and trimming down the 'fat'? or can they do

Re: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-07 Thread Greg Boehnlein
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, David Hubbard wrote: > The thread yesterday didn't seem to get into much > detail; I'm wondering if anyone knows more about what > is going on with Verizon? Our PSTN service with XO > seems to be affected again by what XO claims is a > Verizon problem but they wouldn't elabo

Re: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-07 Thread Jared Mauch
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:32:24PM -0500, David Hubbard wrote: > > The thread yesterday didn't seem to get into much > detail; I'm wondering if anyone knows more about what > is going on with Verizon? Our PSTN service with XO > seems to be affected again by what XO claims is a > Verizon problem

RE: Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-07 Thread Wallace Keith
er 07, 2006 12:32 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Verizon PSTN continued The thread yesterday didn't seem to get into much detail; I'm wondering if anyone knows more about what is going on with Verizon? Our PSTN service with XO seems to be affected again by what XO claims is a Verizon p

Verizon PSTN continued

2006-11-07 Thread David Hubbard
The thread yesterday didn't seem to get into much detail; I'm wondering if anyone knows more about what is going on with Verizon? Our PSTN service with XO seems to be affected again by what XO claims is a Verizon problem but they wouldn't elaborate on why they feel that to be the case; I was just