North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: GBLX congestion in Dallas area

  • From: Justin W. Pauler
  • Date: Wed Jun 08 09:23:21 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HniopZfLAXLwj/0wrF5tC2YRW9AVk4HDF47Dwz0fpM4+2IQqzqW2Ukb1Il0cRd358c7cEz6F53R5XJFWeJDztTV9PE5xBKZBMZWZTwRO79XMbE6/HQQaPJEJfxzma+ZX8g0ysjprCkr+Jvz6m5u5tXqsW6CyE1Li7AafNJ5RxKM=

[email protected] ? ? ?

On 6/8/05, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My concern would be that by openly encouraging people to send in more
> > reports of or inquiries about outages, we are going to see a lot more
> > noise from unqualified folks wanting to "be cool". I personally don't
> want
> > to hear about it every time someone wants to vendor bash ("@#$%^&ing GX
> is
> > down again and their customer support sucks"), every time a T1 in
> > Bumblescum Nowhere goes down, or otherwise completely useless posts
> ("did
> > anyone see anything funky on level 3 on the east coast yesterday?").
> Perhaps the best way to deal with that problem is to wait and
> see if it actually happens. In the past NANOG has carried a lot
> of these outage reports during a time when the net was less
> reliable than it is today. It didn't overwhelm the list back then.
> I would assume that because of the level of effort that operators
> put into having resilient networks, there would not be a huge
> amount of these outage reports because most real outages will
> remain invisible to customers.
> --Michael Dillon