On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Mark Kent wrote:
An appropriate audience would have been the AGIS noc and the Digex noc.
Wrong! It's an operations issue and it SHOULD be on NANOG or a global outages list if such should some day exist.
i have to agree, strongly.
Could you share your findings? If there was a problem, I think we'd all prefer an explanation rather than a finger shaking for having interest.
My key point is that nothing of interest happened.
There are hundreds of providers learning how to deal with multihoming and peering. Anything like this is of interest because people need to know how to recognize and solve problems to keep the global network running.
This was a non-issue until the misinformation was blasted around the Internet technical universe.
Yep, no doubt about it. If you create the environment for misinformation to spread then it WILL spread. However, you can fix this. If timely an accurate outage information is available from everybody then misinformation won't spread and where it does manage to propogate it will merely be static.
this is the major problem i had with the large provider i worked for. the corporate motto was "if we have something broken, we don't want *anyone* else to know about it..." "it's none of *their* business if we have routers melting down..." and my favorate response to customers asking for an "outage notification list" was to create the list, not use it for 6 months, and then come up with some generic statements like "we are having technical difficulty, we;re working on it". complete crap in my opinion. it did nothing but insult customers' intelligence. i agree with what michael is saying (i wont' be struck by lightening will i?) 100%. *timely* disclosure of problems like this would avoid misinformation and bring back a small bit of the spirit of the net that was lost some time back.... *cooperation*. -brett