Anyone from mfn around can you contact me off list? Thanks! Scott
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:54:41PM -0800, scott@wworks.net wrote:
Anyone from mfn around can you contact me off list?
Did you confuse nanog@nanog.org with noc@above.net again? -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Nope, nobody responded from noc@above.net so I tried here, got a response and was all set. Helpful once you get around the noc where we had no response. On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:54:41PM -0800, scott@wworks.net wrote:
Anyone from mfn around can you contact me off list?
Did you confuse nanog@nanog.org with noc@above.net again?
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Scott Granados wrote:
Nope, nobody responded from noc@above.net so I tried here, got a response and was all set. Helpful once you get around the noc where we had no response.
IMHO posting to nanog to contact a Noc should be the last resort. If you have no response to email you should try various numbers you have for their Noc, then your account manager (they love getting called at 3am cause the Noc won't respond to customers) , then the people in whois etc etc. At that point you could post to nanog asking. But if possible make your query a value added for others of us who might be considering using the provider in the future. Sentences like "I sat on hold for 30 minutes and the line went dead" , "leaking RFC 1918 space" , "Changed ip without notice" are useful... -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon@darkmere.gen.nz Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Well sometimes that's valuable and sometimes people make genuine mistakes which they really shouldn't be publically called on the carpet for. I will say to everyone that every time I have had to post to nanog I have always gotten a very helpful response and all were operational in nature. I think that having this open channel for issues whether it be discussion of policy and standard or the occasional help its broken and I can't find anyone via normal channels is great. On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Scott Granados wrote:
Nope, nobody responded from noc@above.net so I tried here, got a response and was all set. Helpful once you get around the noc where we had no response.
IMHO posting to nanog to contact a Noc should be the last resort. If you have no response to email you should try various numbers you have for their Noc, then your account manager (they love getting called at 3am cause the Noc won't respond to customers) , then the people in whois etc etc.
At that point you could post to nanog asking. But if possible make your query a value added for others of us who might be considering using the provider in the future. Sentences like "I sat on hold for 30 minutes and the line went dead" , "leaking RFC 1918 space" , "Changed ip without notice" are useful...
-- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon@darkmere.gen.nz Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Thus spake "Simon Lyall" <simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz>
IMHO posting to nanog to contact a Noc should be the last resort. If you have no response to email you should try various numbers you have for their Noc, then your account manager (they love getting called at 3am cause the Noc won't respond to customers) , then the people in whois etc etc.
OTOH, seeing which NOCs don't answer their email/phones is helpful when deciding which providers to (not) buy from in the future. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
In a message written on Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:02:24AM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
Nope, nobody responded from noc@above.net so I tried here, got a response and was all set. Helpful once you get around the noc where we had no response.
This is not in response to Scott's specific problem, but since MFN was brought up I will inform a bit about how we work. noc@ opens a ticket. You should get an auto reply within a couple of minutes. No auto-reply probably means things are broken enough that the phone is necessary. The phone number in the above.net, mfnx.net, and AS 6461 records will (after a bit of IVR) get you to someone who can help. peering@ also opens a ticket. The same applies. Note, for us noc@ and peering@ go two different places. noc@ is realtime issues, peering@ is policy/requests and other non-realtime issues. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
And just to be totally fair so that mfnx isn't misrepresented or anything. I've looked back and it doesn't seem like I got an autoresponded ticket and while calling the voice lines I got a fast busy which after some digging was a result of some voice issues on my carrier. So although it seemed to me that mfnx wasn't responding they might not have known they had to. I only had the toll free number, maybe a direct number would have worked but either way once posting to nanog the responses were very very quick and correct the first time. and most importantly, thanks to the folks who did help. Scott On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:02:24AM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
Nope, nobody responded from noc@above.net so I tried here, got a response and was all set. Helpful once you get around the noc where we had no response.
This is not in response to Scott's specific problem, but since MFN was brought up I will inform a bit about how we work.
noc@ opens a ticket. You should get an auto reply within a couple of minutes. No auto-reply probably means things are broken enough that the phone is necessary. The phone number in the above.net, mfnx.net, and AS 6461 records will (after a bit of IVR) get you to someone who can help.
peering@ also opens a ticket. The same applies.
Note, for us noc@ and peering@ go two different places. noc@ is realtime issues, peering@ is policy/requests and other non-realtime issues.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Apologies for being marginally operational (but it looks like a lot of Genuity customers might be going dark in one week, with one week's notice ... so it might be considered operational...) I received a mountain of court documents yesterday from the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York... which, if my interpretation of the legalese is correct says that Level 3 has asked the court to reject certain contracts of Genuity's.. including ours, as of February 25th, 2003. My calls to various Genuity contacts are finding nothing but polite receptionists who tell me who "is no longer working for the company" and direct me to various voicemail boxes of account reps who seem to be universally out for the week. It looks like I might have until next Tuesday to buy a new DS3 circuit from somebody else... but it would be nice to know if that is true before I scramble in that direction. "Exhibit A" lists the companies & contracts being "rejected" and I suspect from the list that perhaps a few others here on nanog have received the same pile of court documents I did. My questions are: 1. Is my guess that our Genuity connection will go dark on Feb 25 correct? 2. Can somebody from either Genuity or L3 clue me in (offlist) to the whys, whens and hows here? If I have a less than a week to scramble up another cicuit I need all the lead time I can get. Regards, -- Chuck Goolsbee V.P. Technical Operations _________________________________________________________________ digital.forest Phone: +1-877-720-0483, x2001 where Internet solutions grow Int'l: +1-425-483-0483 19515 North Creek Parkway Fax: +1-425-482-6871 Suite 208 http://www.forest.net Bothell, WA 98011 email: cg@forest.net
I received a document with an attached "exhibit 1" in december listing my genuity service contract which was for "contracts to be assumed and assigned to purchaser" .. some others have since come but i've not had the one you mention. perhaps its in the post? from what i can see all genuity staff are either gone or assimilated, i think you would be best a) opening a support ticket in the usual way b) try level3 customer service (i got this number before as a genuity cust 1-800-958-2945) Steve On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, chuck goolsbee wrote:
Apologies for being marginally operational (but it looks like a lot of Genuity customers might be going dark in one week, with one week's notice ... so it might be considered operational...)
I received a mountain of court documents yesterday from the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York... which, if my interpretation of the legalese is correct says that Level 3 has asked the court to reject certain contracts of Genuity's.. including ours, as of February 25th, 2003.
My calls to various Genuity contacts are finding nothing but polite receptionists who tell me who "is no longer working for the company" and direct me to various voicemail boxes of account reps who seem to be universally out for the week. It looks like I might have until next Tuesday to buy a new DS3 circuit from somebody else... but it would be nice to know if that is true before I scramble in that direction.
"Exhibit A" lists the companies & contracts being "rejected" and I suspect from the list that perhaps a few others here on nanog have received the same pile of court documents I did.
My questions are:
1. Is my guess that our Genuity connection will go dark on Feb 25 correct? 2. Can somebody from either Genuity or L3 clue me in (offlist) to the whys, whens and hows here? If I have a less than a week to scramble up another cicuit I need all the lead time I can get.
Regards,
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 06:17:19PM +0000, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I received a document with an attached "exhibit 1" in december listing my genuity service contract which was for "contracts to be assumed and assigned to purchaser"
.. some others have since come but i've not had the one you mention. perhaps its in the post?
from what i can see all genuity staff are either gone or assimilated, i think you would be best
a) opening a support ticket in the usual way b) try level3 customer service (i got this number before as a genuity cust 1-800-958-2945)
c) Take the legal matter to your telecom attorney and let them tell you your standing. These are complex legal issues that I wouldn't rely on the NOC number to get an answer. Level 3 Legal doesn't work for the customers. They work for Level 3. [ arguments of good customer service stipulated ] -M
2. Can somebody from either Genuity or L3 clue me in (offlist)
Wow... I got a call from my new genuity, er L3 rep within two minutes of this hitting nanog. Damn this list is good! =) Still no clarification to our situation, but it has been promised by tomorrow. ...and yeah, all you folks who are sending your salessharks toward the rapidly expanding mass of chum in the water here... go ahead... provided of course *you* can actually deliver me a DS3 in a week or so if I sign papers between now and Friday! Regards, -- Chuck Goolsbee V.P. Technical Operations _________________________________________________________________ digital.forest Phone: +1-877-720-0483, x2001 where Internet solutions grow Int'l: +1-425-483-0483 19515 North Creek Parkway Fax: +1-425-482-6871 Suite 208 http://www.forest.net Bothell, WA 98011 email: cg@forest.net
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:20:31AM -0800, chuck goolsbee wrote:
provided of course *you* can actually deliver me a DS3 in a week or so if I sign papers between now and Friday!
Encourage them why don't you. Seriously though, might you not consider a second path to the sea. We've been doing that for many years, and lately it has been especially reassuring to have bankrupt-big-guy diversity. My current provisioning rule is to have no more than 2 out of 3 upstreams in bankruptcy at any one time. Of course, we allow the 3rd to be near bankruptcy, with an occaisional liquidity crisis. Ken Leland Monmouth Internet Monmouth Telephone & Telegraph
participants (10)
-
chuck goolsbee -
Ken Leland -
Leo Bicknell -
Martin Hannigan -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Scott Granados -
scott＠wworks.net
-
Simon Lyall -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Stephen Sprunk