> An appropriate audience would have been the AGIS noc and the Digex
Wrong! It's an operations issue and it SHOULD be on NANOG or a global
outages list if such should some day exist.
i have to agree, strongly.
> > Could you share your findings? If there was a problem, I think
> > we'd all prefer an explanation rather than a finger shaking for
> > having interest.
> My key point is that nothing of interest happened.
There are hundreds of providers learning how to deal with multihoming and
peering. Anything like this is of interest because people need to know how
to recognize and solve problems to keep the global network running.
> This was a
> non-issue until the misinformation was blasted around the Internet
> technical universe.
Yep, no doubt about it. If you create the environment for misinformation
to spread then it WILL spread. However, you can fix this. If timely an
accurate outage information is available from everybody then
misinformation won't spread and where it does manage to propogate it will
merely be static.
this is the major problem i had with the large provider i worked
for. the corporate motto was "if we have something broken, we don't
want *anyone* else to know about it..." "it's none of *their*
business if we have routers melting down..."
and my favorate response to customers asking for an "outage
notification list" was to create the list, not use it for 6 months,
and then come up with some generic statements like "we are having
technical difficulty, we;re working on it".
complete crap in my opinion. it did nothing but insult customers'
intelligence. i agree with what michael is saying (i wont' be struck
by lightening will i?) 100%. *timely* disclosure of problems like
this would avoid misinformation and bring back a small bit of the
spirit of the net that was lost some time back.... *cooperation*.