NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61

Glenn Kelley glenn at vinehosting.com
Mon Jan 10 15:57:33 CST 2011


I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott 

Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past. 
We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate future issues for exactly this reason.

HP is a great partner!    

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 at nanog.org wrote:

> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
> 	nanog at nanog.org
> 
> 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 at nanog.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	nanog-owner at nanog.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   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 at anime.net)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:39:19 -0500
> From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim at brandontek.com>
> Subject: RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: <greg.whynott at oicr.on.ca>
> Cc: nanog group <nanog at nanog.org>, khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com
> Message-ID: <BLU158-w56696A3677B43628EE789ADC0E0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> 
> 
> 
> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear"..
> 
> 
> 
> 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?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca
>> To: brandon.kim at brandontek.com
>> CC: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com; nanog at nanog.org
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>> 
>> 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-Interoperability.pdf ).
>> 
>> 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"..
>> 
>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>> 
>> -g
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> To your point Andrey,
>>> 
>>> 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!
>>> 
>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are being sincere(sarcasm).
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least tried their hardest to support you.....
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least in my
>>>> experience.
>>>> 
>>>> My $0.02
>>>> 
>>>> Andrey
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3.
>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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?).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -g
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Andrey Khomyakov
>>>> [khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com]
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 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.
> 		 	   		  
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:14:44 -0600
> From: "Thomas Donnelly" <tad1214 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <op.vo32lwi8wjyiia at osprey>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> 
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim  
> <brandon.kim at brandontek.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear"..
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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?"
> 
> 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.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca
>>> To: brandon.kim at brandontek.com
>>> CC: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com; nanog at nanog.org
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>> 
>>> 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-Interoperability.pdf  
>>> ).
>>> 
>>> 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"..
>>> 
>>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>>> 
>>> -g
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> To your point Andrey,
>>>> 
>>>> 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!
>>>> 
>>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are  
>>> being sincere(sarcasm).
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least  
>>> tried their hardest to support you.....
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least  
>>> in my
>>>>> experience.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My $0.02
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andrey
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott  
>>> <Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca>wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal  
>>> L2/L3.
>>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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?).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -g
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrey Khomyakov
>>>>> [khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com]
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 		 	   		
> 
> 
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500
> From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca>
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: Thomas Donnelly <tad1214 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID: <DF852A5F-04B3-4F96-B1FC-955367976EF6 at oicr.on.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> 
> 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.
> 
> -g
> 
> 
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim
>> <brandon.kim at brandontek.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear"..
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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?"
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca
>>>> To: brandon.kim at brandontek.com
>>>> CC: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com; nanog at nanog.org
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>> 
>>>> 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-Interoperability.pdf
>>>> ).
>>>> 
>>>> 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"..
>>>> 
>>>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>>>> 
>>>> -g
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> To your point Andrey,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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!
>>>>> 
>>>>> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are
>>>> being sincere(sarcasm).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least
>>>> tried their hardest to support you.....
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>>>>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least
>>>> in my
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My $0.02
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott
>>>> <Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca>wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal
>>>> L2/L3.
>>>>>>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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?).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -g
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Andrey Khomyakov
>>>>>> [khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com]
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
> Subject: Re: Satellite IP
> To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<18554927.984.1294695210090.JavaMail.root at benjamin.baylink.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu>
> 
>>> Why the hostility, Valdis?
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not.
> 
> "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking 
> strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least me.
> 
> :-)
> 
> And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the 
> transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that particular
> environment.
> 
>> Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;)
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST)
> From: goemon at anime.net
> Subject: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
> To: "'nanog at merit.edu'" <nanog at merit.edu>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101101349450.19712 at sasami.anime.net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
> Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
> 
> I have tried the usual channels (abuse at limestonenetworks.com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG at nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> 
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61
> *************************************

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110110/6ca46efa/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list