RE: (ASCEND) Ascend/Lucent and Y2k.

[Cori Rhodes <Cori_Rhodes@baylor.edu>]

         Reply to:   RE: (ASCEND) Ascend/Lucent and Y2k.
Jason,
I thought Ascend based their dates on an epoch, that is how many seconds have passed since a certain time in the past.  Based on that, they figure out the year.  In this case, we don't have to worry about wether  or not the engineers used two digits or four digits to represent the year.  I would see no reason for the engineers to adjust this part of the TAOS when addressing routing, stability, interoperability, etc. problems.

I am mostly an observer on the list but have respected your comments, thoughts and insight.  Why do you think running engineering code could be a problem?  
Cori

Jason Nealis wrote:
>
>
>Just thought for many of you out there you may be interested in the following : >
>As I know many of you out there have been running engineering loads in >production
>due to the problems and instability with production releases. FWIW, I have >gotten
>confirmation from Lucent that they will not stand behind any engineering >releases
>for Y2k readiness.
>
>"Because this is an eload as opposed to a release, Lucent does not provide >any warranties, Including any related to >Y2k Readiness, and furnishes this to you "as-is". >
>Personally, I've very upset as it has been the lack of ability for >engineering to supply me a
>production release that actually works. I'm always forced to run >engineering loads because of
>the lack of proper regression testing. >
>So if you running E-Loads as I am, Then you may have some need for concern. >
>
>
>-- >Jason Nealis
>Director of Internet Operations
>RCN >++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
>To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
>To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
>

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>