[39288] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statement of WorldCom, Inc. on Nasdaq Network Service
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Barber)
Mon Jul 2 03:07:21 2001
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010702080622.00ac62a0@pop.ukgateway.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 08:06:22 +0100
To: Brian Wallingford <brian@meganet.net>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
From: Tony Barber <acb@ukgateway.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106292247080.7435-100000@ripple>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
its not just uunet then !
At 12:13 AM 30/06/01 -0400, Brian Wallingford wrote:
>
>:It appears Worldcom is learning. A few years ago when Worldcom had
>:an outage affecting the Chicago Board of Trade, Mr. Ebbers didn't make
>:a public statement for over a week. This time Worldcom had a public
>:statement in less than five hours.
>
>It appears that they're learning that public disclosure is necessary for
>high-profile problems that will inevitably be picked up quickly by the AP
>or others.
>
>The ten-thousand dollar question is who authorized _development testing_
>on a production network at 2:30pm - NASDAQ or Wcom? "Routine testing" at
>2:30pm? Or was it a fluke related to a problem with personnel
>management?
>
>Will the press accept Bernie's quote and forget the incident? Probably.
>
>:BTW, did anyone ever receive an actual explaination for what happened
>:two years ago when Worldcom lost their frame-relay? I never did.
>
>Nothing beyond the standard upgrade-gone-wrong stuff. I have yet to find
>details as simple as to which sw ver they were upgrading from, and
>upgrading to. Information which, combined with subsequent events, could
>certainly aid others. It would be interesting to at least learn if they
>attempted to do a batch upgrade, or if they staggered upgrades, but ran
>into database inconsistencies related to the upgrade.
>
>cheers,
>brian
>
>
