[39187] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Wed Jun 27 23:22:00 2001
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 23:21:26 -0400
From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010627232125.A38631@og.latency.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0106272009490.12544-100000@www.everquick.net>; from eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net on Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:15:35PM +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:15:35PM +0000, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> On the surface, this appears to be correct.
Indeed. But, why stop with this very superficial analysis? Why can't
we dig deeper into such details as:
- who started announcing cruft, and to who?
- which vendor's hardware/software passed it along, and which dropped
their BGP sessions, as they're currently required to?
- which providers were impacted, and to what extent?
and so on.
I'm sure most of us know the answers to these questions by now, and
those who don't, should. Shame we're all forbidden from discussing
things further in a truly open manner due to NDA. This was not the
case in the not-so-distant past; hopefully the climate will change in
time for future multi-provider incidents of operational concern.
-adam
