If someone from Level3 could tell me why routes tagged with
65000:0 and/or 65000:1239 don't actually stop those routes from being
advertised to 1239, I'd appreciate it.
They show up in lg.level3.net with:
Suppress_to_Peers Suppress_to_AS1239
but they also show up in other route servers with
We all have plenty of billing nightmares. Level 3 has tried this sort of
thing before. Their "property tax surcharge" or something. We got it
removed years ago since our MSA didn't support it -- their new ones do,
whether legal or not.
We were particularly frustrated with a traditional T3 in
PWG> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:34:04 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> Calling something a "tax" or "federally mandated" when it is not
PWG> sounds both like a class action suit waiting to happen, and illegal
PWG> enough to have the company at least fined.
I agree.
I'm probably not the on
On Jul 31, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Hoping for a company which will put ethics above profit is like
looking for an honest politician. They're extremely rare.
I'm just looking for a company that looks past the next quarterly
investor call. Because then at least some ethics
Hey,
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:00:36 +0100
Leon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 31 Jul 2008, at 14:16, Juuso Lehtinen wrote:
>
> > Second that.
> >
> > Using hub to tap into a single link is also risky. I used to monitor
> > single FE link with 100M hub. After link had moderate utilizatio
Hoping for a company which will put ethics above profit is like
looking for an honest politician. They're extremely rare.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:28:47PM -0400, Jamie A Lawrence wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
> >Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been
On Jul 31, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Jamie A Lawrence wrote:
On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the
recieving end a few times.. you don't always know it is happening.
I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. I strongly doubt any
v
On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the recieving
end a few times.. you don't always know it is happening.
I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. I strongly doubt any vendor
has actual malice towards me (modulo some peopl
I have had the same problem and solved it with a rare (even then)
100BT Only hub. I still have at least one stashed away.
For years though, I have been using bonding on Linux to combine multiple
tap streams. We also use hardware aggregators for the higher volume
applications.
Jon
On Thu, Jul 31,
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Joe Maimon wrote:
You try something, see if it works. Then try something a little bit less,
see if it works, and so on.
If what you are saying translates to
"How much pain can we inflict on our customers before they break (whether or
not it increases revenue or decreases
From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?
>
Orthogonal to this discussion, Level(3)'s support, while never great
shakes compared to the exemplary service that I used to get from
Looking Glass Networks, has in recent months taken a
Joe Maimon wrote:
> "How much pain can we inflict on our customers before they break
> (whether or not it increases revenue or decreases costs)?"
I see it in a different way.
At one point, a corporation's accountants decide that growth through
acquisition of new customers will slow and the only
Gadi Evron wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
(It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want
to act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)
I wouldn't automatically assume malice here, although it is tempting.
You try something,
see if it works. Then try som
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.
They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on the
bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are explicitly
not taxable.
When you call Level3 billing,
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 02:47:11PM -0400, Jon Kibler wrote:
Hubs are still available that are REAL hubs. I got 4 netgears about a
year ago and they are still available.
However, there is a problem with your specification: No hub (that I
a
Peer1 has a similar charge but actually labels it "LA
Telecommunications Surcharge" or something to the effect.
(David: Sorry for sending to you personally at first instead of to list).
--
Jeffrey Lyon, President
Level III Information Systems Technician
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.blacklotus.n
From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?
>
We're going on three months of trying to get billing
issues resolved; and yes, no way to talk to a real
person anymore, nor are there any sales reps left
that have any interest in talking
I saw the same kinds of behavior from WorldCom years before their collapse.
I was the technical manager at a small ISP in Houston and was presented with
the WorldCom invoices and was shocked to find 20% per month in phony
charges.
2.5% is a far cry from 20% but that 20% had to start somewhere.
L
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 02:47:11PM -0400, Jon Kibler wrote:
> Hubs are still available that are REAL hubs. I got 4 netgears about a
> year ago and they are still available.
>
> However, there is a problem with your specification: No hub (that I am
> aware of) can do 1Gbps. All hubs are 10/100 AFAI
At what point is regulation okay?
J
On Jul 31, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.
They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes"
on the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services
are expli
Matthew Petach wrote:
I'm sure when Gmail gets close to the same number of users
as Yahoo, they will discover how challenging and painful it is
to support that many simultaneous short-lived SSL connections.
It's much easier to support CPU intensive tasks like full-time
SSL when you have a small u
Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.
They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on
the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are
explicitly not taxable.
When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message it is
not
On 31 Jul 2008, at 14:16, Juuso Lehtinen wrote:
Second that.
Using hub to tap into a single link is also risky. I used to monitor
single FE link with 100M hub. After link had moderate utilization
>20%, collision led was lit all the time.
I've had good experience with VSS Monitoring Ether
oddly enough, i was chatting with a friend from the w3c while walking
off-site to lunch from the dublin ietf about the life, and death, of the
w3c's p3p project (i was a contributor, he works in a different area),
and its possible re-animation.
without meaning to (i assume) martin's made a lan
Second that.
Using hub to tap into a single link is also risky. I used to monitor single
FE link with 100M hub. After link had moderate utilization >20%, collision
led was lit all the time.
I've had good experience with VSS Monitoring Ethernet Aggregator taps. Also
Catalyst 2960 SPAN seems to wor
Warren Kumari wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Darryl Dunkin wrote:
Hubs sure are fun...
This might be a stupid question, but where can one get small hubs these
days? All of the common commodity (eg: 4 port Netgear) "hubs" these
days are actually switches.
What I am looking for is:
Lynda wrote:
Warren Kumari wrote:
What I am looking for is: Small enough to live in my notebook bag
(e.g.: 4 port with a wall wart.) Cheap Simple 10/100/1000Mbps
I don't believe that such a thing ever existed. Hubs that did 10/100,
certainly, but I've never ever seen a hub that did gig speed
27 matches
Mail list logo
