|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Bet on with my boss
steve uurtamo wrote: > > > No. That's not what the bet is about. Sorry. > > > > The bet was if I could stop the various SPEWS threads. > > ha! i was close, at least admit that! Someone else was closer actually. Hold on, let me back track through the posts and see who . . . Andy Dills. He said, and I quote: "I probably should take your advice, but that's an interestingly ambiguous question so I'll indulge on a slow Friday afternoon. Anything to derail that spews thread." I think that's pretty close, but then he wasn't guessing was he. I think you were the first to attempt a guess. > > > But I am actually curious about this. Because, you see, genuity, as I > > understand it, restored "phone" service to lower manhattan post 9/11 > > through voice over ip. And I was just wondering how they would fix a > > shafu with the internet if the only phone service was Voice over IP. And > > that got me thinking about this whole convergence, you know, when we all > > migrate to a packet switched network and the telcos are all bankrupt. > > And I wondered if anyone else needs/hates the phone the way I do. > > oh, i think that telephones, with their existing ridiculous, but reasonably > effective routing system, will be around for a long time. plus, you can be > on a packet switched network without being affected by internet snafus. HOW?!?! I'm fairly new to this, so . . . Maybe it's cause I'm not well versed on VoIP. Dunno. But it seems that if your packet switched, you need a router. Unless you design the network so voice traffic routed by a different router, using all different fiber, in different trenches, so there is no possibility of an internet snafu nixing phone service. Because, I thought the reason ... people ... were all hot to converge the networks was ease, one stop shopping and all that crap (can you say crap here?) BTW, since you're being so nice and not ignoring me, what does FIARK mean? > i think that the day is reasonably far away when everyone who picks up a > phone is actually transmitting packets across the globally connected internet. > same goes for cell phones. Some ... people ... think its no more than five years away, for metropolitan areas that is. Which is where most of the people are anyway. It may take another hundred to get _everyone_ packet switched. I mean there are some 1AESSes still out there. > > you know, a good friend of mine once hung up the phone at a point that seemed > a bit early in the conversation, after suggesting that we go somewhere to > talk instead. his reason? he said he'd rather talk to a person than to > a piece of plastic. i liked that reason. me too. I hate phones. Doesn't mean they aren't absolutley necessary. > > > That's all. > > > > I think I stopped the spews thread. > > what an aptly named thread, you know? > > :) your clever question, as well as steven sobol ranting about being > asked to quit posting about it, seemed to have dried it up. > > > Thanks for your support. > > no problemo, > > s. I may have to unsubscibe to nanog, or figure out some way to fix this so it stops filling my inbox. Who'd ever thought network operators talked so much! Anyone got a great idea on how to recieve only the messages for you, and not recieve everything addressed to nanog, without dumping HUGE quantities of mail into some unknown box in yahoo?? or aol?? Thanks again, Jane
|