|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=BrQ_m1ypzObszR8_Ta9hPuz_gw-x7ZJYqknJh@mail.gmail.com> From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:24:58 -0500 To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org I have seen nation state disconnects where light is lost.=20 Jared Mauch On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> w= rote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Jake Khuon <khuon@neebu.net> wrote: >=20 >> I guess this begs the question of whether or not we're seeing actual >> layer1 going down or just the effects of mass BGP withdrawals. Are we >> seeing lights out on fibre links or just peering sessions going down? >> Both could still point to a coordinated intentional blackout by the >> Egyptian gov't though. >=20 > out of curiousity, what's the difference though between loss of light > and peer shutdown? If the local gov't comes in and says: "Make the > internets go down", you as the op choose how to do that... NOT getting > calls from your peer for interface alarms is probably sane. You can > simply drop your routes, leave BGP running even and roll ... >=20 > If it's clear (and it seems to be) that the issue is a > nation-state-decision... implementation (how it's done, no IF it's > done) isn't really important, is it? >=20 > -chris >=20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |