RE: Problems with either Cisco.com or AT&T?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Michael Airhart <mairhart@cisco.com> wrote:
I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email, at least part of our connectivity is up.
No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just lurk Nanog to get the skinny)..
Cisco's problem seems to be have been resolved. Also see: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/08/update_ciscocom_site.html Thanks to everyone for their verification. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGujLsq1pz9mNUZTMRAu7pAJ4s2GtvR24DNGyLwGmEeaz6sLQx7gCfZW/J ALFp5DbrxnvdxL9Qfl8OyHk= =0gF2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Cisco's problem seems to be have been resolved.
Also see:
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/08/update_ciscocom_site.html
Thanks to everyone for their verification. :-)
I heard, from incredibly unreliable sources, that Cisco was testing a new router that included a flywheel, clutch and diesel engine all on the same shaft. I also understand the DDEC failed which caused major routing instability. But take it with a mine of salt. Tuc/TBOH
participants (2)
-
Paul Ferguson
-
Tuc at T-B-O-H