From: Sean Doran <smd@chops.icp.net> Date: 17 Aug 1996 17:29:52 -0400 In order to enforce that contract, we have installed inbound prefix filters to ignore all subnets of our PA CIDR blocks that are announced by our peers at exchange points.
Gack! So that's what happened to my network last Sunday! Even though the provider from which we get our service claims to be multi-homed with Sprint and MCI, when the Sprint link was down, no traffic was flowing through MCI. OK. I'll be recommending that the Sprint contract not be renewed. And in the $10M RFP that just went out for one of my clients, I'll specify during my bid technical review in September that any bids that include SprintLink will not be accepted. Enough is enough. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:
*snip*
Gack! So that's what happened to my network last Sunday!
Even though the provider from which we get our service claims to be multi-homed with Sprint and MCI, when the Sprint link was down, no traffic was flowing through MCI.
be more specific. there could be many reasons for this. most of which wouldn't be Sprint's fault.
OK. I'll be recommending that the Sprint contract not be renewed. why? because your upstream may have not configured properly?
And in the $10M RFP that just went out for one of my clients, I'll specify during my bid technical review in September that any bids that include SprintLink will not be accepted. Enough is enough.
on what technical basis? sigh Marc
On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Marc E. Hidalgo wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Gack! So that's what happened to my network last Sunday!
Even though the provider from which we get our service claims to be multi-homed with Sprint and MCI, when the Sprint link was down, no traffic was flowing through MCI.
be more specific. there could be many reasons for this. most of which wouldn't be Sprint's fault.
I hate to stick up for Sprint, but they are right in this case. Assuming that you're posting from the network which is supposedly multi-homed, then they're lying to you. The only route which covers your address space is sprints "Class B-ish" announcement of the whole /16. The provider isn't announcing any more-specifics to their other provider (MCI?) if it exists. Effectively making you singly-homed to sprint. We're just now getting stuff set to be announcing routes - AND - some of our older Sprint-provided-blocks aren't going to be announced into our other provider, effectively making those numbers still single-homed, thus encouraging the renumbering into our /18 for redundancy.
And in the $10M RFP that just went out for one of my clients, I'll specify during my bid technical review in September that any bids that include SprintLink will not be accepted. Enough is enough. on what technical basis? sigh
Let's see, of my 3 competitors which don't use sprintlink: 1 Can't configure DNS correctly 1 Can't configure routing correctly 1 has perpetual "downtime difficulties". I'd hate to see someone loose a contract just because they have sprint. A look in the global routing tables could prove much more enligtening regarding their connectivity. To tell you the truth, I'm quite often the one who calls sprint when they first have problems. I get paged within 5 minutes automatically when I can't reach my border router, or If I can't reach one of the naps. A good provider will know when they're down due to their upstreams, and if BGP hasn't already taken care of it, they will manually switch to their other provider. -forrestc@imach.com
participants (3)
-
Forrest W. Christian -
Marc E. Hidalgo -
William Allen Simpson