[181046] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AS4788 Telecom Malaysia major route leak?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Sun Jun 14 20:07:24 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Rafael Possamai <rafael@gav.ufsc.br>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:07:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAJB2g-E-nh-DtT_SA8EXxZHcqvx3G85jCn_aoeawptaMiWHcHg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
SLAs are part of a contract, and thus only apply to the parties of the cont=
ract. There are no payments due to other parties. The Internet is a "best e=
ffort" network, with zero guarantees.
-mel beckman
On Jun 14, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Rafael Possamai <rafael@gav.ufsc.br<mailto:raf=
ael@gav.ufsc.br>> wrote:
Does anyone know if there's an official "ruling" as to who gets to pay for =
the SLA breaches?
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@be=
ckman.org>> wrote:
Raymond,
But you said "A simple 'sorry' would have done." Now you're asking for lots=
more detail. Why the change?
-mel beckman
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn <raymond@prolocation.net<=
mailto:raymond@prolocation.net>> wrote:
>
> Hello Mel,
>
> Must just be me then.
>
> I was most likely expecting a more in depth report. Strange things happen=
ed. Perhaps they could post a 'what exactly happened' since this wasnt a av=
erage route leak.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond Dijkxhoorn
>
>> Op 14 jun. 2015 om 23:27 heeft Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@b=
eckman.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Raymond,
>>
>> They provided a "simple sorry":
>>
>> "We apologise for any inconvenience caused by the service disruption."
>>
>> It doesn't get much more simple than that.
>>
>> -mel beckman
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn <raymond@prolocation.ne=
t<mailto:raymond@prolocation.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hai!
>>>
>>> Mark, mistakes and oopses happen. No problem at all. I understand that =
completely. There is human faillure and this happenes.
>>>
>>> A simple 'sorry' would have done. Yet their whole message tells 'they d=
id ok' In my very limited view they did NOT ok. Did i misread?
>>>
>>> I am also very much looking how level3 is going to prevent things like =
this. But out of own experience they will not. We have seen before that the=
y implemented filtering based on customer lists. But not a per customer fil=
ter. They did this globally. So any l3 customer can announce routes of anot=
her l3 customer. While this can be changed this outage tells there is certa=
inly room for improvements.
>>>
>>> I hope people will learn from what happened and implement proper filter=
ing. Thats even more important then a message from a operator that didnt ev=
en understand fully what they caused to the internet globally.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond Dijkxhoorn
>>>
>>>> Op 14 jun. 2015 om 23:04 heeft Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu<mailto=
:mark.tinka@seacom.mu>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/Jun/15 22:55, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>>>>> Hai!
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouw! This is what they came up with?!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully Level3 will take appropriate measures. Its amazing. Really.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Some internationally routes'
>>>>>
>>>>> Have they any idea what they did at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Its amazing that with parties like that the internet still works as i=
s <tm> ...
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't be as hard. Stuff happens - and as they said, during a
>>>> maintenance activity, they boo-boo'ed.
>>>>
>>>> Are Level(3) going to own up and say they should have had filters in
>>>> place? I certainly hope they do.
>>>>
>>>> But more importantly, are Level(3) going to implement the filters
>>>> against TM's circuit? Are they going to run around the network looking
>>>> for any additional customer circuits that need plugging? That's my
>>>> concern...
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
