[4906] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Basic BGP configuration problem"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bradley Dunn)
Tue Oct 1 12:59:16 1996
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bradley Dunn <dunn@harborcom.net>
To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.960930223855.24468M-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca>
This is true. Yet often the message on the machine is weeks old and does
not reflect current network outages. For example, our Sprint connection
was useless for about five hours yesterday due to the BGP problems in
Chicago. A message didn't show up on MNS until after it was fixed in
Chicago (but still broken in FW, KC, and ANA). It's progress though...
The reason I thought it was funny was not because they were having
problems (all providers have problems), but because of the following:
(a) In the past various Sprint people have suggested multihoming to
different SprintLink POPs as a solution to their refusal to hear
specifics of their aggregates from peers. Well, with four POPs having
problems in the same day, perhaps a better term would be multi-screwed.
(b) Possible evidence for Metzger's cowboyism theory? Were these BGP
configs tested before they were implemented?
(c) So much for the "clueless small ISPs" being the only ones unable to
config BGP. Let's face it, routing configuration in a complex and dynamic
internetwork is a challenging task, whether it is being performed by a
billion dollar telco or a $100,000 startup.
-BD
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Marc Slemko wrote
> [The message on the machine talks about Sprint having some backbone
> troubles due to "Basic BGP configuration" problems.]
>
> Hey, it is a good laugh however Sprint should still be credited for making
> such information available easily, even if it is a bit funny sometimes.
> Don't laugh too hard or you may laugh Sprint right away from providing
> such information.
