[46460] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Walden)
Fri Mar 29 11:50:37 2002
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:45:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Andy Walden <andy@tigerteam.net>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020329164326.GA87733@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203290941480.2471-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Note that in both cases, b0rken-noc takes a single call, so their
> load is unchanged. The second case adds a call to both my-upstream-noc,
> and b0rken-noc-upstream-noc.
>
> It would seem going direct would put a lower load on NOC's in general,
> which presumably would let them spend more time on problems and provide
> better service.
Where is the limit though? Once I open things up to non customers, and let
any random person call me, without any sort of filters or controls, what
keeps my best guys from troubleshooting someone's mistyped SMTP server in
their mail client? Processes are put in place to scale and when they are
disregarded, things generally end up worse in the long run.
andy
--
PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
