|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:51:50 -0400 From: Ravi Pina <ravi@cow.org> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu In-Reply-To: <23807.1307641668@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:47:48PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:45:25 EDT, Ravi Pina said: > > > We hit some vendor issues which prevented us from having a larger > > showing, sadly. > > Sorry you weren't able to deploy more. But the *important* question is: > > Did you get enough packet traces/logs/etc of the issue so the vendor is able to > take some sort of action? > The issue was specific to a version of the code and a working version was provided. We were reluctant to rush out the upgrade without due diligence. One could argue we should have upgraded a while ago. I'm not one of those people ;) -r
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |