[51512] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Me)
Thu Aug 29 01:26:00 2002
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:25:24 -0600 (MDT)
From: Me <smentzer@mentzer.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020829051206.GJ53265@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> Massive stupidity shouldn't win you points just because you admit to it
> (note that I consider the *massive* stupidity part to start at the
> inability to troubleshoot the problem, not the failure in change
> management).
>
I don't think anyone can point to massive stupidity w/o knowing exactly
what happened and the exact steps taken to fix it. Even though the RFO
note indicated the "problem" and the "solution", my guess is that things
were a bit more complicated than finding a couple config statements,
putting them back in and watching the network magically start working
again.
Of course that is just my opinion, I could be wrong :)
> But to be fair, when a NOC or Customer Service person writes an RFO, it
> usually comes out sounding very very bad, regardless of the actual
> complexity of the situation. I'm certain all the AT&T customers hope that
> was the case here. :)
>
Agreed, and sometimes the RFO tends to be a bit simplistic compared to the
actual trouble.
-sean
Spoon!
