[109954] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Global Crossing SOC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fouant, Stefan)
Wed Dec 17 16:51:01 2008
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:49:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20081217210111.GA9031@infiltrated.net>
From: "Fouant, Stefan" <Stefan.Fouant@neustar.biz>
To: "J. Oquendo" <sil@infiltrated.net>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
While I understand where you are coming from and I completely agree, I
think I should point out that the search pattern you generated actually
produced an Press Release about Global Crossing's SOC implementing some
ISO 9001:2000 certification. At the bottom of the article it had Press
"Contacts" within Global Crossing. It didn't actually contain any
useful contact information for any SOC personnel whatsoever...
It's a moot point however, because I happen to agree with you that
obtaining that information via nslookup is a more effective barrier at
weeding out the less clueful.
Stefan Fouant: NeuStar, Inc.
Principal Network Engineer=20
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
[ T ] +1 571 434 5656 [ M ] +1 202 210 2075
[ E ] stefan.fouant@neustar.biz [ W ] www.neustar.biz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Oquendo [mailto:sil@infiltrated.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:01 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Global Crossing SOC
>=20
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Fouant, Stefan wrote:
>=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J. Oquendo [mailto:sil@infiltrated.net]
> > > Subject: Re: Global Crossing SOC
> > >
> > > only one who has thought about this. Maybe NAP's and NSP's can
> > > place contact information somewhere for those with a specific
> > > need to contact those with direct knowledge.
> >
> > I think it's a lovely idea, I just wonder how long such a system
> would
> > last before people really start taking advantage of it, i.e. I have
a
> > really low priority, non-important issue I need resolved, let me get
> in
> > touch with the MOST clueful person I can to get a really quick
> > resolution...
> >
>=20
> I thought I had made it clear about the cons. Obviously the con would
> be someone contacting say Global or Level3 or someone else with: "OMFG
> like... Some virus!", the cost of doing business. That doesn't stop
> them NOW from Googling "security" +"Global", they're not doing an
> nslookup
> for contact information. I would like to believe that the majority of
> people doing nslookup's for contact information usually have a higher
> grasp of what they're looking for. Ask any "Average Joe" to perform an
> nslookup and compare those results to deer on the highways looking at
> those high-beams.
>=20
> You can't expect someone with a less than mission critical reason to
> contact someone in a higher position, there is no guarantee someone
> wouldn't be clueful enough to just Google "SOC" +"Global Crossing"
> +SOC
>=20
>
(http://www.google.com/search?q=3D%22global+crossing%22+%2B%22SOC%22+%2Bc=
> ontact)
>=20
> What I infer from you is "right... Buddy go ahead and do it... Then
> the whole world will be screaming about not-so-important shtuff!"
> If this is the case, what's to stop them from using Google. For the
> most part, we can infer a large portion of users outside of those
> with *some* form of networking concepts/experience, can use and know
> what nslookup is for. Placing relevant information is not going to
> "cripple SOC" no more than Google would.
>=20
>=20
> =
=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D=
+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+
> J. Oquendo
> SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP
>=20
> "Enough research will tend to support your
> conclusions." - Arthur Bloch
>=20
> "A conclusion is the place where you got
> tired of thinking" - Arthur Bloch
>=20
> 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0x5CCD6B5E
>=20
