Re: OUTAGE: MCI/Worldcom frame-relay network
I'm confused by your message. Which is more questionable: The MarketWatch story which was clearly inaccurate -- it didn't even mention impact to the industry they report on (i.e., CBOT) -- or the messages Sean posted? From all appearances Sean's messages were timely, highly accurate, and very informative. This is more than can be said of the news media coverage.
This is the second time I have witnessed you complaining about outage information being posted and discussed in this forum. Why is information sharing bad?
I don't believe that information sharing is bad. I think it is good. I do not believe NANOG is appropriate for real time operational issues. That's all. -alan PS - sean's messages were not 'highly accurate' as they maintained that WCOM was not reporting on the problems, while they were.
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Alan Hannan said:
PS - sean's messages were not 'highly accurate' as they maintained that WCOM was not reporting on the problems, while they were.
As a stockholder, I say that if Bernie is so upset at what Sean is inferring as to the state of the network; he or his underlings can always call Sean, and educate him. I bet they have his number... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
I do not believe NANOG is appropriate for real time operational issues.
Let me see here .... What Can we not do on nanog: We can't talk about cisco configuration issues as they are discussed on cisco-nsp or something like that. We can't talk about Routing Protocols - they belong on some other list somewhere. We can not talk about outages affecting most all of our customers - as this isn't the appropriate forum. I could go on and on and on.... Is there ANY topic which is ok to discuss on the nanog list? - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) KD7EHZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Nanog website: ".....Establish a forum for the exchange of technical information"
I agree that we should use restraint with posts like "my line is up" and "my line is down". This however, IS the place to discuss routers and switches and software pertinant to our everyday practices. Don't get me wrong, I still love to find out that a provider of mine is having trouble on the west coast long before their call center has gotten word of it. mike Michael Heller Sr. Systems Engineer Earthweb, Inc. 212.448.4175 mikeh@earthweb.com On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
I do not believe NANOG is appropriate for real time operational issues.
Let me see here .... What Can we not do on nanog:
We can't talk about cisco configuration issues as they are discussed on cisco-nsp or something like that.
We can't talk about Routing Protocols - they belong on some other list somewhere.
We can not talk about outages affecting most all of our customers - as this isn't the appropriate forum.
I could go on and on and on....
Is there ANY topic which is ok to discuss on the nanog list?
- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) KD7EHZ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Alan Hannan -
David Lesher -
Forrest W. Christian -
Mike Heller