At 05:44 PM 6/4/2001 -0400, Travis Pugh wrote:
route-views.oregon-ix.net concurs:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bgp regex ^3561_174_
route-views.oregon-ix.net>
Yes, but if one or the other has backup peering, it would not look like that. It would look like _3561_.*_174_ or _174_.*_3561_ - prolly the former since AS3561 gives route-views a feed, but AS714 does not. Looking in route-views for those two patterns, I see only a few routes under 3561.*_174_, probably leakage. There are no routes of the form _174_.*_3561_. Since route-views does have a feed from AS3561, I would say it is official. Cable and Wireless cannot reach PSI.net. Congratulations ladies & gentlemen. The first intentional, prolonged, significant (for some values of "significant" :) outage on the Internet. And we were all here to see it.... Wow, in the same week MAE-East dies. Sad time for the 'Net. :((
-travis
-- TTFN, patrick
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:16:32 -0400 From: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
[ snip ]
Congratulations ladies & gentlemen. The first intentional, prolonged, significant (for some values of "significant" :) outage on the Internet. And we were all here to see it....
Wow, in the same week MAE-East dies. Sad time for the 'Net. :((
Hey, Boardwatch's yearly "speed rating" is over. Another year before anybody has to worry. *rolls eyes* I wonder if 3561/174 are significantly perturbed on CAIDA or MIQ... Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet Division Phone: (316) 794-8922 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Yes, but if one or the other has backup peering, it would not look like that. It would look like _3561_.*_174_ or _174_.*_3561_ - prolly the former since AS3561 gives route-views a feed, but AS714 does not.
Looking in route-views for those two patterns, I see only a few routes under 3561.*_174_, probably leakage. There are no routes of the form _174_.*_3561_.
Ah ... me and my half-assed regular expressions. Thanks for the clean-up work, Patrick. The most recent showdown I can relate this to is Time Warner turning off ABC over contract disputes. The odd thing about that was that ABC seemed to get more of the public opinion blame than TW did ... is it possible that PSI's distressed financial state will affect public perception of who is at fault? Either way, I wouldn't expect CW to turn anything back on until they get enough customer complaints that they can't hold out any longer ... this is certainly not the cleanest way to settle a contract dispute, and should serve as a stark warning to anyone considering CW for transit. -travis
-- TTFN, patrick
this is certainly not the cleanest way to settle a contract dispute,
but it is a damn good way to invite regulation. "The stability of the Internet is a national concern" will be the sound-bite. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
this is certainly not the cleanest way to settle a contract dispute,
but it is a damn good way to invite regulation. "The stability of the Internet is a national concern" will be the sound-bite.
Yuck. I was interviewed by the GAO a few months back (they wanted to talk to little players about the transit market) and was worrying that the feds wanted to mandate interconnection policies in one form or another ... we certainly don't want to encourage that kind of behavior. However, it seems reasonable that if we can't regulate ourselves someone else is going to do it for us. -travis
-- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Yuck. I was interviewed by the GAO a few months back (they wanted to talk to little players about the transit market) and was worrying that the feds wanted to mandate interconnection policies in one form or another ... we certainly don't want to encourage that kind of behavior. However, it seems reasonable that if we can't regulate ourselves someone else is going to do it for us.
It seems that everyone has fogotton what the "Internet" is. The Internet is not IP, the network protocol could change and it would still be the Internet. The Internet is not the providers, the providers could change and it would still be the Internet. The Internet is a spirit and a philosophy. That spirit and philosophy is of making a good faith effort to obtain connectivity and exchange information with anybody else who makes a similar effort. Anyone who claims to provide 'Internet access' or 'Internet service' or to be an 'Internet' product or service without practicing that philosophy is, in my opinion, practicing fraud. This applies to software, hardware, and even peering. A program is "Internet software" if it makes a good faith effort to exchange information with anybody else who makes a similar effort, not if it happens to work over the machines and protocols that happen to constitute the Internet today. DS
participants (5)
-
David Schwartz -
E.B. Dreger -
Eric A. Hall -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Travis Pugh