Does Zetex exist?

[Pig Bladder]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:16:59 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

And what is it with sites wanting you have to have Flash installed all
the time now too ?

Idiot employers hiring hot-shot script kiddies at exorbitant wages
to do fancy-schmancy bullshit.

IOW, people who have more money than sense. ("If you're so rich,
howcome you're not smart?")
--
The Pig Bladder from Uranus

 

[Fred Abse]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 16:01:37 +0200, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Chris Carlen" <crcarleRemoveThis@BOGUSsandia.gov> wrote in message
news:d6im120cih@news4.newsguy.com...

--- www.zetex.com ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 0 received,
100% packet loss, time 3998ms

Many ISP's routinely block Pings these days! So it does not tell you
anything.

PING www.zetex.com (212.103.248.103): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=1 ttl=121 time=780.4 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=2 ttl=121 time=150.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=3 ttl=121 time=150.1 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=4 ttl=121 time=150.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=5 ttl=121 time=139.6 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=6 ttl=121 time=141.3 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=7 ttl=121 time=140.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=8 ttl=121 time=1239.7 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=9 ttl=121 time=250.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=10 ttl=121 time=140.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=11 ttl=121 time=139.6 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=12 ttl=121 time=140.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=13 ttl=121 time=140.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=14 ttl=121 time=139.6 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=15 ttl=121 time=470.3 ms
64 bytes from 212.103.248.103: icmp_seq=16 ttl=121 time=140.0 ms

--- www.zetex.com ping statistics ---
17 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 5% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 139.6/278.1/1239.7 ms

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

skavanagh72nospam@yahoo.ca wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

And what is it with sites wanting you have to have Flash installed
all the time
now too ?

That one is beyond me and is my pet internet peeve! Why I should have
to wait a few minutes downloading software I don't want before I can
read a web page is baffling. When Mazda Canada pulled that one I
stopped looking at their cars and bought a Toyota. The Flash people
must pay good kickbacks or something.

I kept getting the flash detection message at IR's site and just told it
to go away - it doesn't seem to do anything useful..

Today however I *had* to finally succumb and download it just to view a
design brief at Fairchild's site.

E-mail them and ask for the info to be sent as a cross-platform
attachment, politely explaining why.

If people keep putting them to a lot of trouble, they might realise
their website isn't working and give the IT whizz-kids (and their
ignorant managers) a kick in the appropriate place.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.21.20.28.03.974974@cerebrumconfus.it...

--- www.zetex.com ping statistics ---
17 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 5% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 139.6/278.1/1239.7 ms

So?! We happily conclude that *This Time* your pings were forwarded by a
network that does forward Pings; Will that be the case tomorrow or next week
or maybe the next five minutes?

Either you can reach the damn thing or you cannot - but it does not tell you
anything because you cannot see what goes on inbetween.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 10:42:46 +0200, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Fred Abse" <excretatauris@cerebrumconfus.it> wrote in message
--- www.zetex.com ping statistics ---
17 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 5% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 139.6/278.1/1239.7 ms

So?! We happily conclude that *This Time* your pings were forwarded by a
network that does forward Pings; Will that be the case tomorrow or next week
or maybe the next five minutes?

Either you can reach the damn thing or you cannot - but it does not tell you
anything because you cannot see what goes on inbetween.

Damn! I was gonna say, "Sure you can," but this happened:
$ traceroute www.zetex.com
traceroute to www.zetex.com (212.103.248.103), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 ops.abiengr.com (10.0.0.1) 1.070 ms 0.270 ms 0.135 ms
2 71.103.80.1 (71.103.80.1) 19.245 ms 11.815 ms 13.249 ms
3 P4-2.LCR-03.LSANCA.verizon-gni.net (130.81.35.112) 20.447 ms 12.768 ms 13.208 ms
4 so-7-1-0-0.BB-RTR1.LAX01.verizon-gni.net (130.81.17.145) 20.250 ms 14.262 ms 13.249 ms
5 bux-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (63.145.160.61) 18.159 ms 15.735 ms 15.706 ms
6 bur-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.13.177) 18.318 ms 15.361 ms 17.295 ms
7 svl-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.14.122) 24.369 ms 23.047 ms 23.996 ms
8 svx-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.14.82) 24.348 ms 24.550 ms 23.714 ms
9 sjp-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.214.138) 39.847 ms 27.741 ms 200.393 ms
10 sjo-bb1-geth1-2-0.telia.net (213.248.86.13) 75.118 ms 76.397 ms 88.858 ms
11 chi-bb1-pos6-1-0-0.telia.net (213.248.80.25) 76.961 ms 78.741 ms 76.982 ms
12 nyk-bb1-pos0-3-0.telia.net (213.248.80.154) 87.104 ms 88.494 ms 88.084 ms
13 ldn-bb1-pos7-1-0.telia.net (213.248.65.89) 157.008 ms 156.224 ms 156.548 ms
14 ldn-b2-pos11-2.telia.net (213.248.64.78) 155.612 ms 154.529 ms 154.713 ms
15 pipex-104657-ldn-b2.c.telia.net (213.248.100.94) 155.815 ms 157.363 ms 155.581 ms
16 gb0-1-2-llb-x-many.HE23.core.rtr.gxn.net (194.143.163.38) 158.305 ms 155.989 ms 155.356 ms
17 p6-0-0.ld-cr21.cix.gxn.net (62.72.156.154) 190.800 ms 497.178 ms 426.828 ms
18 v258.ld-ar31.cix.gxn.net (62.105.126.21) 345.339 ms 257.510 ms 256.350 ms
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *
[then traceroute decided it was done.]

To be honest, I don't even know what this means, other than to get there,
you have to go halfway around the world and back.

Thanks,
Rich

"They say 'the early bird gets the worm'. This is fine if you like
worms for breakast."

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.23.15.20.57.132606@example.net...

Damn! I was gonna say, "Sure you can," but this happened:

Exactly ;-)

To be honest, I don't even know what this means, other than to get there,
you have to go halfway around the world and back.

That you have no control over the traffic flow; the only thing you know is
that when you throw it out of your box, it will magically appear in the
right place on the other box ;-)

......

It is a subject that is really fanning the flames between the "Old"
connection-oriented Telecom world, where the path was known, agreed upon and
specified in advance, and the "New & Improved All-IP" package-oriented
Telecom world:

There is NO control over the insides of an IP network, only at the endpoints
and only in the nodes, you actually "own" with management software(z).
Therefore, You need to have Enough Bandwith, Always.

Telco's do not like to overprovision, there are entire branches of
mathematics and queue theory lined up to calculate how much one can skimp on
the network - problem is, they were developed for connection-oriented
networks!

Consequently, Many, Many tools and techniques, such as IntServ, MPLS and
DiffServ, exist to bloody well force an IP network into becoming a virtual
circuit switched one - And most end up causing more CPU/RAM to be spend on
Management and Provisioning than on The JOB, which is moving traffic!

When the old telecom engineers finally retire, the issues will be resolved.
Until then we will still see f.ex. routers shipping with 60MB of
"Management" bloatware and Quad P4's to run it on, to control about 6 MB
worth of "Package Handling" - i.e. products that exactly mimic corporate
structures ;-)

 

[rex]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:50:13 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
<frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.23.15.20.57.132606@example.net...

Damn! I was gonna say, "Sure you can," but this happened:

Exactly ;-)

To be honest, I don't even know what this means, other than to get there,
you have to go halfway around the world and back.

That you have no control over the traffic flow; the only thing you know is
that when you throw it out of your box, it will magically appear in the
right place on the other box ;-)

Uhhmm
I almost responed to Rich's previous post but didn't think it mattered.

I did a trace route to Zetex from here. In mine, a different list
ensued, but I got to the same place where his trace died (his last item
in uk) but in mine I got to one more next item in the trace -- the Zetex
site -- end of trace.

So, I think clearly, Rich pointed out one example where Zetex really did
not exist.

I guess the site is not always available.

 

[doug dwyer]

In message <1gwyl46.1hhlv4gwsperkN%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid>,
Adrian Tuddenham <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> writes

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

skavanagh72nospam@yahoo.ca wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

And what is it with sites wanting you have to have Flash installed
all the time
now too ?

That one is beyond me and is my pet internet peeve! Why I should have
to wait a few minutes downloading software I don't want before I can
read a web page is baffling. When Mazda Canada pulled that one I
stopped looking at their cars and bought a Toyota. The Flash people
must pay good kickbacks or something.

I kept getting the flash detection message at IR's site and just told it
to go away - it doesn't seem to do anything useful..

Today however I *had* to finally succumb and download it just to view a
design brief at Fairchild's site.

E-mail them and ask for the info to be sent as a cross-platform
attachment, politely explaining why.

If people keep putting them to a lot of trouble, they might realise
their website isn't working and give the IT whizz-kids (and their
ignorant managers) a kick in the appropriate place.

Everything takesw longer on the net now, im in a remote area with only a

pots dialup line and everything would be much faster if it was all in
text.
..pdfs are a particular problem by the time its loaded the lines dropped!

--
dd