|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BGP instability (was Re: Exodus Down)
[ Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I'm not about to dispense potentially bogus legal advice, especially on a technical list like this. I've you've got problems with the Exodus NDA and the lack of open communication resulting from it - perceived or otherwise - you might want to drop <[email protected]> a line. ] On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:49:21PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote: > Hmmmmm... You somehow found a way to get this information without > agreeing to the NDA? Impressive. (For the people around here who > aren't Exodus customers: subscribing to their network > engineering/outage list theoretically implies agreeing to an NDA, > which is presumably why no one here mentioned this) Is that to insinuate that all Exodus customers have signed the mystical customer NDA? Or more importantly, that this document will even hold up in court? And, how all-encompassing is this document? Passing around "confidential" notices of facilities issues is likely a bad thing(TM). But, are customers forbidden from publishing uptime and environmental statistics they've collected in the course of normal monitoring, if such statistics could indicate problems with their IDC's power (got blackouts in Sunnyvale and Jersey City?) and HVAC? That said, if you want to play by the rules, I've found the following to be a far more useful resource than NANOG speculation/FUD, for both customers and non-customers alike: echo subscribe | mail [email protected] On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 08:47:08PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote: > Trying to apply an NDA to outage information has always struck me as > a bit stupid. After all, NDA or not, people know you had an outage, > what they don't know is your explanation why it happened. As we've > seen, when there is a lack of good information, people will make up > stories to fit. I could not agree more. >From a PR/damage control standpoint, I guess I can understand the reasoning behind tagging all Exodus outage notifications with the words "CONFIDENTIAL" and "NDA" in big bold letters. And it's quite possible that the network operators negatively impacted by this veil of secrecy are a vocal minority. Still, some non-confidential communication along the lines "there's a problem, we're working on it, you might not see it yet, but there's a problem and we're going to get it fixed for you in a way that's as efficient as possible!*%$!" (see: GENU NOC tour movie) beats the alternatives. :-) On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 12:05:50AM -0400, Vivien M. wrote: > > 3. The information received via the list is considered > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > confidential information, not to be reproduced in any form > > without prior written approval of Exodus. > [...] > In any case, #3 would be violated by posting NANOG about any > information on that list, IMHO. Not necessarily. -adam
|