For a good laugh, call: 800-669-8303 and select option 2. -BD
[The message on the machine talks about Sprint having some backbone troubles due to "Basic BGP configuration" problems.] Hey, it is a good laugh however Sprint should still be credited for making such information available easily, even if it is a bit funny sometimes. Don't laugh too hard or you may laugh Sprint right away from providing such information. On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Bradley Dunn wrote:
For a good laugh, call: 800-669-8303 and select option 2.
-BD
This is true. Yet often the message on the machine is weeks old and does not reflect current network outages. For example, our Sprint connection was useless for about five hours yesterday due to the BGP problems in Chicago. A message didn't show up on MNS until after it was fixed in Chicago (but still broken in FW, KC, and ANA). It's progress though... The reason I thought it was funny was not because they were having problems (all providers have problems), but because of the following: (a) In the past various Sprint people have suggested multihoming to different SprintLink POPs as a solution to their refusal to hear specifics of their aggregates from peers. Well, with four POPs having problems in the same day, perhaps a better term would be multi-screwed. (b) Possible evidence for Metzger's cowboyism theory? Were these BGP configs tested before they were implemented? (c) So much for the "clueless small ISPs" being the only ones unable to config BGP. Let's face it, routing configuration in a complex and dynamic internetwork is a challenging task, whether it is being performed by a billion dollar telco or a $100,000 startup. -BD On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Marc Slemko wrote
[The message on the machine talks about Sprint having some backbone troubles due to "Basic BGP configuration" problems.]
Hey, it is a good laugh however Sprint should still be credited for making such information available easily, even if it is a bit funny sometimes. Don't laugh too hard or you may laugh Sprint right away from providing such information.
Bradley Dunn writes:
The reason I thought it was funny was not because they were having problems (all providers have problems), but because of the following:
(a) In the past various Sprint people have suggested multihoming to different SprintLink POPs as a solution to their refusal to hear specifics of their aggregates from peers. Well, with four POPs having problems in the same day, perhaps a better term would be multi-screwed.
We are working on adjusting our multihoming policies such that multihoming with Sprint will be a viable solution for customers.
(b) Possible evidence for Metzger's cowboyism theory? Were these BGP configs tested before they were implemented?
Yes. And it wasn't the configs that were wrong. It was a BGP related Cisco bug.
(c) So much for the "clueless small ISPs" being the only ones unable to config BGP. Let's face it, routing configuration in a complex and dynamic internetwork is a challenging task, whether it is being performed by a billion dollar telco or a $100,000 startup.
Noone is immune to bugs in code. -Hank
Henry Kilmer writes:
(b) Possible evidence for Metzger's cowboyism theory? Were these BGP configs tested before they were implemented?
Yes. And it wasn't the configs that were wrong. It was a BGP related Cisco bug.
Did you test the configs in a lab first? Thats the best way to find these sorts of things -- in test... Did you have a backout plan in place to rapidly fall back in case of failure? Perry
On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Henry Kilmer writes:
(b) Possible evidence for Metzger's cowboyism theory? Were these BGP configs tested before they were implemented?
Yes. And it wasn't the configs that were wrong. It was a BGP related Cisco bug.
Did you test the configs in a lab first? Thats the best way to find these sorts of things -- in test...
No matter how rigorous the test in a lab is, there are bugs and failure modes that cannot be discovered until real traffic passes through it. I assume Sprint got bitten by one of these... -dorian
On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Henry Kilmer writes:
(b) Possible evidence for Metzger's cowboyism theory? Were these BGP configs tested before they were implemented?
Yes. And it wasn't the configs that were wrong. It was a BGP related Cisco bug.
Did you test the configs in a lab first? Thats the best way to find these sorts of things -- in test...
Network engineers don't do lab stuff. That's for researchers. Ride 'em cowboy!
Did you have a backout plan in place to rapidly fall back in case of failure?
Hell no, just put them spurs to the hoss and ride... yeeeehaaaa! Seems to me that it might be useful to have some sort of document that explains just how cowboys operate their networks. What I have in mind is something like Emily Postnews. How about it Perry, are you up to the task? Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon writes:
Network engineers don't do lab stuff. That's for researchers. Ride 'em cowboy!
Seems like the contempt doesn't always flow just towards the small ISPs, eh, Mr. Dillon?
Did you have a backout plan in place to rapidly fall back in case of failure?
Hell no, just put them spurs to the hoss and ride... yeeeehaaaa!
Seems to me that it might be useful to have some sort of document that explains just how cowboys operate their networks. What I have in mind is something like Emily Postnews. How about it Perry, are you up to the task?
Is this the way the encourage better cooperations among the community of the Internet, including users, small ISPs, and large ISPs?
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Joseph Malcolm wrote:
Seems to me that it might be useful to have some sort of document that explains just how cowboys operate their networks. What I have in mind is something like Emily Postnews. How about it Perry, are you up to the task?
Is this the way the encourage better cooperations among the community of the Internet, including users, small ISPs, and large ISPs?
Not at all. It's the way to educate network engineers about how the world expects them to use their newly gained technical skills. The problem isn't whether Sean Doran or Curtis Villamizer, et al. know how to restrain themselves, because they do know having had years of experience. IMHO the problem is to get up-and-coming network engineers (most of them even in the larger companies) to understand a new order of business. This is not unlike the difference between doing data processing at a small company (seat of the pants) and a LARGE company (plan, develop, deskcheck, alpha test, wait until Sunday to run live tests, implement when everybody on the team checks off on the works, etc...). Lots of people are picking up the core technical skills like dancing with BGP, but there is more to it than that. Most of these people have their hearts in the right place but they just don't understand the problem because it probably hasn't been explained to them in a way that they can understand. That's where "art" comes in and things like Dilbert, Emily Postnews and the suggested "cowboy" document can be useful. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
In a previous message, Joseph Malcolm wrote:
Michael Dillon writes:
Seems to me that it might be useful to have some sort of document that explains just how cowboys operate their networks. What I have in mind is something like Emily Postnews. How about it Perry, are you up to the task?
Is this the way the encourage better cooperations among the community of the Internet, including users, small ISPs, and large ISPs?
Sure. I think it's a great idea. Keeps some of the old flavor going, and it always helps to have different points of view on a complex system. This would be the HOW[NOT]TO. -- David Carmean WB6YZM DC574 <dlc@silcom.com> System/Network Administration, Silicon Beach Communications Unsolicited commercial e-mail not accepted. Violators will be LARTed.
Perry E. Metzger writes:
Henry Kilmer writes:
(b) Possible evidence for Metzger's cowboyism theory? Were these BGP configs tested before they were implemented?
Yes. And it wasn't the configs that were wrong. It was a BGP related Cisco bug.
Did you test the configs in a lab first? Thats the best way to find these sorts of things -- in test...
If you read my message, I said "yes" to testing the configs prior to going live with them. Unfortunately our testing does not turn up all of the problems we encounter on our backbone since it is very difficult to generate an accurate environment to simulate our backbone.
Did you have a backout plan in place to rapidly fall back in case of failure?
Of course. -Hank
participants (9)
-
Bradley Dunn -
Bradley Dunn -
dlc＠silcom.com -
Dorian R. Kim -
Henry Kilmer -
Joseph Malcolm -
Marc Slemko -
Michael Dillon -
Perry E. Metzger