[160475] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Wed Feb 6 12:31:50 2013
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:31:21 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1302061126450.7636@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/6/13 8:34 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ray Wong wrote:
>
>>> My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable by
>>> a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about why
>>> and so on. "Emergency work for five hours and 30 minutes
>>> disconnection" that turns out to take longer than 30 minutes of
>>> disconnection probably ought to come with some explanation (at least
>>> after the fact).
>>
>> I was more looking for details, i.e. the sort of problem this is, as
>> it probably also means all my *other* providers are going to be
>> scrambling in the next few days/weeks/months, depending on what gear
>> they're all using. I'm out of the global infrastructure game myself
>> for a few years currently, but I still have to think ahead to the
>> network I do maintain.
>
> If Level3 is pushing this upgrade because of a security vulnerability,
> like the recent Juniper PSN, any public notification will likely be
> tersely worded out of necessity.
>
The one that motivated us to upgrade is:
PR839412
I assume that applies to most people with interest in running current
junos. My imagination is pretty good so that got my attention.
> You might be able to get more details by contacting your account team,
> but it's highly unlikely that you'll see the level of detail you're
> looking for in a public communication. That's not a knock against
> Level3, and most other carriers will likely be equally tight-lipped on
> the details.
>
> jms
>
