nanog mailing list archives
Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 24 Jun 2001 20:52:13 -0700
Yes, but I guess you'll have to wait for the official press announcement since everyone wants to keep what happened under NDAs. One way to sure-fire attract the attention of reporters is to claim something is a secret. Its like waving a red cape in front of a bull. Those that don't remember their history are doomed to repeat it. Anyone remember why NERC, NRIC and mandatory goverment reporting of outages in other industries came to be? On Sun, 24 June 2001, lucifer () lightbearer com wrote:
Out of curiosity - did anyone see a duration of significanlt instability in the global routing tables on Saturday afternoon? Without violating NDA, all I can say is that it resembled a historic event involve a bad route, Ciscos, and Bay routers (only this time, it was a bad route, Ciscos, and <X> vendor whom I cannot name but is being soundly beaten with wet noodles to resolve the issue). The bad route, and instability, were seen across all of our transit vendors (all "household" names of transit service). Anyone else see this sort of event, or further details on the cause?
Current thread:
- Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23, (continued)
- Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 Brett Frankenberger (Jun 24)
- Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 lucifer (Jun 25)
- Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 lucifer (Jun 25)
- Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 Jared Mauch (Jun 25)
- Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 lucifer (Jun 25)
- RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement... Chance Whaley (Jun 26)
- RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement... Matt Levine (Jun 26)
- Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement... Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 26)
- RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement... Chance Whaley (Jun 26)
- RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement... Matt Levine (Jun 26)