Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:38:12 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Stephen Hovey <shovey@buffnet.net> Cc: Alan Batie <batie@agora.rdrop.com>, fbsdlist@revelstone.jvm.com, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UUNET vs Netcom Message-ID: <199612220338.TAA21948@root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 21 Dec 1996 13:34:54 EST." <Pine.BSI.3.95.961221133345.7476F-100000@buffnet7.buffnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > We left UUNET for sprint. UUNET had much better customer service, but >> > with sprint we rarily need any customer service whereas with UUNET we did >> > (they dropped alot etc) >> >> On the other hand, Sprint seems to have a lot of routing problems... > >I dont agree. Sprint is often blamed for routing problems, but most >problems, when tracerouted etc were at MAE points. And places like >ftp.cdrom.com no long route thru them etc. The routing issues with Sprint seem to have improved a little, but it wasn't but just a few months ago that the Sprint network flapped so badly that it was usuable. I think these problems have mostly been isolated and dealt with (there was a flakey router in Dallas/FW that was lots of trouble, plus various IOS problems in DC and Stockton). I was very happy when my ISP here changed to default to MCI rather than Sprint...especially since MCI had just done some major upgrades that helped things a bunch. CRL peers with Sprint at the PB-NAP to avoid congestion that Sprint has at MAE-west (and probably for other reasons, such as load balancing their own circuits). Last time I looked, MCI peered with Sprint on the west coast through a dedicated circuit. -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?199612220338.TAA21948>