Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 15:55:43 -0800 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Woah! cdrom.com! Message-ID: <199602212355.PAA01781@Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Feb 1996 18:41:24 EST." <199602212341.SAA02241@crh.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >Waitaminute, is that an ethernet I see between MCI and CRL? >> >> This is the second report we've gotten about this, and the last one had a >> nearly identical traceroute - MCI through mae-east. The last one I analyzed >> showed that the problem was the MCI -> MAE-east hop, not the MAE-east -> CRL >> hop. I don't know what to say about this other than it appears to me to be an >> MCI problem. CRL has future plans to upgrade their connection to MAE-east to >>DS3 (it is currently 10Mbits), but in this case it appears that it's not going >>to matter. :-( > >Can one send in a problem report to MCI to get the routing from MCI to CRL to >go through the PacBell NAP? You can if you're an MCI customer. I sent in a problem report to CRL about 30 minutes ago about the this, but other than analyze it and say "yeah, it's a problem", they're not likely going to be able to do much about it. CRL already sets a high cost on the MAE-east connection - which is why the outbound traffic prefers the PB-nap. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602212355.PAA01781>