[134761] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Glenn Kelley)
Mon Jan 10 16:57:41 2011
From: Glenn Kelley <glenn@vinehosting.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1383.1294696371.21807.nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:57:33 -0500
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--Apple-Mail-55-709357681
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott=20
Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past.=20
We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate =
future issues for exactly this reason.
HP is a great partner! =20
If you need a router check out vYatta or pfSense - pfSense for the low =
end of course. - Both are open - Both have paid support and we are very =
happy with them.
Glenn
On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:52 PM, nanog-request@nanog.org wrote:
> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
> nanog@nanog.org
>=20
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> nanog-request@nanog.org
>=20
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> nanog-owner@nanog.org
>=20
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
>=20
>=20
> Today's Topics:
>=20
> 1. RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Brandon Kim)
> 2. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Thomas Donnelly)
> 3. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Greg Whynott)
> 4. Re: Satellite IP (Jay Ashworth)
> 5. Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
> (goemon@anime.net)
>=20
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:39:19 -0500
> From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
> Subject: RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: <greg.whynott@oicr.on.ca>
> Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>, khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com
> Message-ID: <BLU158-w56696A3677B43628EE789ADC0E0@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"Windows-1252"
>=20
>=20
>=20
> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix =
gear"..
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know =
that, I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco =
router?"
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> From: Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca
>> To: brandon.kim@brandontek.com
>> CC: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>=20
>> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt =
with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability =
solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into =
during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, ( =
http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoper=
ability.pdf ).
>>=20
>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to =
help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd =
ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to do =
this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people don't =
mix gear"..
>>=20
>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>>=20
>> -g
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> To your point Andrey,
>>>=20
>>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger =
point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one
>>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason =
you pointed out, get all Cisco!
>>>=20
>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are =
being sincere(sarcasm).
>>>=20
>>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy =
their stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should
>>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to =
another vendor.
>>>=20
>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least =
tried their hardest to support you.....
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>>>=20
>>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say =
that
>>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco =
and
>>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both =
sides.
>>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and =
Avaya
>>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling =
between
>>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and
>>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them =
anymore.
>>>>=20
>>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the =
network, the
>>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good =
technical/financial
>>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in =
those
>>>> cases.
>>>>=20
>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least =
in my
>>>> experience.
>>>>=20
>>>> My $0.02
>>>>=20
>>>> Andrey
>>>>=20
>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott =
<Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal =
L2/L3.
>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried =
to use
>>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it =
was a bad
>>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support =
issues,
>>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. =
Then
>>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to =
say Cisco
>>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and =
handled
>>>>> better when stuff hits the fan.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee =
comfortable
>>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC =
requirements
>>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has =
always
>>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be =
opposed to
>>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they =
have been
>>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of =
the other
>>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be =
beta
>>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade =
our firmware
>>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?).
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the =
smart net
>>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with =
unrestricted license
>>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on =
options,
>>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> -g
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>> Andrey Khomyakov
>>>> [khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com]
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>>=20
>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or =
privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any =
review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was =
originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this =
message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. =
Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may =
not be that of the organization.
> =20
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:14:44 -0600
> From: "Thomas Donnelly" <tad1214@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Message-ID: <op.vo32lwi8wjyiia@osprey>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8; format=3Dflowed; delsp=3Dyes
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim =20
> <brandon.kim@brandontek.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix =
gear"..
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know =
that, =20
>> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco =
router?"
>=20
> I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an =20=
> engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying =20=
> another vendor they raise an eyebrow.
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> From: Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca
>>> To: brandon.kim@brandontek.com
>>> CC: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>=20
>>> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've =
dealt =20
>>> with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability =20=
>>> solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run =
into =20
>>> during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP =
gear, =20
>>> ( =20
>>> =
http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoper=
ability.pdf =20
>>> ).
>>>=20
>>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused =
to =20
>>> help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. =
I'd =20
>>> ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying =
to =20
>>> do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people =20=
>>> don't mix gear"..
>>>=20
>>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>>>=20
>>> -g
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> To your point Andrey,
>>>>=20
>>>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger =20=
>>> point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one
>>>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason =20=
>>> you pointed out, get all Cisco!
>>>>=20
>>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are =20=
>>> being sincere(sarcasm).
>>>>=20
>>>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy =
their =20
>>> stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should
>>>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to =20=
>>> another vendor.
>>>>=20
>>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least =20=
>>> tried their hardest to support you.....
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>>>>=20
>>>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just =
say =20
>>> that
>>>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco =
and
>>>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both =20=
>>> sides.
>>>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s =
and =20
>>> Avaya
>>>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling =20=
>>> between
>>>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT =
and
>>>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them =20
>>> anymore.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the =20
>>> network, the
>>>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good =20
>>> technical/financial
>>>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in =20=
>>> those
>>>>> cases.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least =
=20
>>> in my
>>>>> experience.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> My $0.02
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott =20
>>> <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal =20=
>>> L2/L3.
>>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and =
tried =20
>>> to use
>>>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why =
it =20
>>> was a bad
>>>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support =
issues,
>>>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design =
choices. =20
>>> Then
>>>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not =
to =20
>>> say Cisco
>>>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and =20=
>>> handled
>>>>>> better when stuff hits the fan.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee =
comfortable
>>>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC =20
>>> requirements
>>>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has =
=20
>>> always
>>>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be =
opposed =20
>>> to
>>>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and =
they =20
>>> have been
>>>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of =
the =20
>>> other
>>>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be =20=
>>> beta
>>>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade =
our =20
>>> firmware
>>>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?).
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the =20=
>>> smart net
>>>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with =20
>>> unrestricted license
>>>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on =20=
>>> options,
>>>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> -g
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrey Khomyakov
>>>>> [khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com]
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>>=20
>>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or =20
>>> privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. =
Any =20
>>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it =
was =20
>>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received =
this =20
>>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. =20=
>>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message =
=20
>>> may not be that of the organization.
>> =09
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500
> From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: Thomas Donnelly <tad1214@gmail.com>
> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Message-ID: <DF852A5F-04B3-4F96-B1FC-955367976EF6@oicr.on.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"Windows-1252"
>=20
> for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found =
calling your sales rep much more efficient than anything you can =
say/ask/beg/threaten the tech on the phone. Sales guys have the =
inside numbers to call, the clout to get things moving as they generate =
revenue for said vendor. his pay comes from you, you pay him, he =
works for 2.
>=20
> -g
>=20
>=20
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim
>> <brandon.kim@brandontek.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix =
gear"..
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know =
that,
>>> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco =
router?"
>>=20
>> I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an
>> engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying
>> another vendor they raise an eyebrow.
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> From: Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca
>>>> To: brandon.kim@brandontek.com
>>>> CC: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>>=20
>>>> just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've =
dealt
>>>> with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability
>>>> solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run =
into
>>>> during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP =
gear,
>>>> (
>>>> =
http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoper=
ability.pdf
>>>> ).
>>>>=20
>>>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused =
to
>>>> help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. =
I'd
>>>> ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying =
to
>>>> do this" ? to which they would try and play the "well most people
>>>> don't mix gear"..
>>>>=20
>>>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>>>>=20
>>>> -g
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> To your point Andrey,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger
>>>> point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one
>>>>> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason
>>>> you pointed out, get all Cisco!
>>>>>=20
>>>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are
>>>> being sincere(sarcasm).
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy =
their
>>>> stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should
>>>>> try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to
>>>> another vendor.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least
>>>> tried their hardest to support you.....
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just =
say
>>>> that
>>>>>> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco =
and
>>>>>> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both
>>>> sides.
>>>>>> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s =
and
>>>> Avaya
>>>>>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling
>>>> between
>>>>>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT =
and
>>>>>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them
>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the
>>>> network, the
>>>>>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good
>>>> technical/financial
>>>>>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in
>>>> those
>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At =
least
>>>> in my
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> My $0.02
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott
>>>> <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal
>>>> L2/L3.
>>>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and =
tried
>>>> to use
>>>>>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why =
it
>>>> was a bad
>>>>>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support =
issues,
>>>>>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design =
choices.
>>>> Then
>>>>>>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not =
to
>>>> say Cisco
>>>>>>> gear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and
>>>> handled
>>>>>>> better when stuff hits the fan.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee =
comfortable
>>>>>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC
>>>> requirements
>>>>>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it =
has
>>>> always
>>>>>>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be =
opposed
>>>> to
>>>>>>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and =
they
>>>> have been
>>>>>>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of =
the
>>>> other
>>>>>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be
>>>> beta
>>>>>>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade =
our
>>>> firmware
>>>>>>> on our core equipment several times in one year?).
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the
>>>> smart net
>>>>>>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with
>>>> unrestricted license
>>>>>>> and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on
>>>> options,
>>>>>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more?
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> -g
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Andrey Khomyakov
>>>>>> [khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com]
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>>=20
>>>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or
>>>> privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. =
Any
>>>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it =
was
>>>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received =
this
>>>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this =
message
>>>> may not be that of the organization.
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
>=20
> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or =
privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any =
review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was =
originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this =
message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. =
Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may =
not be that of the organization.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
> Subject: Re: Satellite IP
> To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> Message-ID:
> <18554927.984.1294695210090.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
>=20
>>> Why the hostility, Valdis?
>>=20
>> As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can =
make
>> all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an =
inexact
>> science,
>> it's really hard to provide a *100% guarantee* that you'll have =
enough
>> contended capacity to make all the performance targets even if every
>> single occasional customer shows up at once. As Jay pointed out in =
his
>> follow-up note, his backup strategy is "scramble around and hope =
another
>> provider can
>> come through in time", which is OK if you *know* that's your strategy
>> and are OK on it. However, blindly going along with "my usual =
provider
>> guaranteed 100% availability" is a bad idea.
>=20
> I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not.
>=20
> "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking=20=
> strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least =
me.
>=20
> :-)
>=20
> And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the=20
> transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that =
particular
> environment.
>=20
>> Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;)
>=20
> Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper,
> and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder.
>=20
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST)
> From: goemon@anime.net
> Subject: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
> To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101101349450.19712@sasami.anime.net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=3DUS-ASCII; format=3Dflowed
>=20
> Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / =
limestonenetworks.com?
>=20
> I have tried the usual channels (abuse@limestonenetworks.com, phone =
calls, "live chat") with no results.
>=20
> -Dan
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>=20
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61
> *************************************
--Apple-Mail-55-709357681
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
name=PGP.sig
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAk0rgM4ACgkQGn5p5MrxebuO5gCfaLGVCgRwavlLaANrkRRS7+wd
0rUAn3teDNAlG1FYIX3YiLzGc80DIbnq
=47sO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail-55-709357681--
