While I understand where you are coming from and I completely agree, I think I should point out that the search pattern you generated actually produced an Press Release about Global Crossing's SOC implementing some ISO 9001:2000 certification. At the bottom of the article it had Press "Contacts" within Global Crossing. It didn't actually contain any useful contact information for any SOC personnel whatsoever...
It's a moot point however, because I happen to agree with you that obtaining that information via nslookup is a more effective barrier at weeding out the less clueful. Stefan Fouant: NeuStar, Inc. Principal Network Engineer 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 [ T ] +1 571 434 5656 [ M ] +1 202 210 2075 [ E ] stefan.fou...@neustar.biz [ W ] www.neustar.biz > -----Original Message----- > From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:01 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Global Crossing SOC > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Fouant, Stefan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: J. Oquendo [mailto:s...@infiltrated.net] > > > Subject: Re: Global Crossing SOC > > > > > > only one who has thought about this. Maybe NAP's and NSP's can > > > place contact information somewhere for those with a specific > > > need to contact those with direct knowledge. > > > > I think it's a lovely idea, I just wonder how long such a system > would > > last before people really start taking advantage of it, i.e. I have a > > really low priority, non-important issue I need resolved, let me get > in > > touch with the MOST clueful person I can to get a really quick > > resolution... > > > > I thought I had made it clear about the cons. Obviously the con would > be someone contacting say Global or Level3 or someone else with: "OMFG > like... Some virus!", the cost of doing business. That doesn't stop > them NOW from Googling "security" +"Global", they're not doing an > nslookup > for contact information. I would like to believe that the majority of > people doing nslookup's for contact information usually have a higher > grasp of what they're looking for. Ask any "Average Joe" to perform an > nslookup and compare those results to deer on the highways looking at > those high-beams. > > You can't expect someone with a less than mission critical reason to > contact someone in a higher position, there is no guarantee someone > wouldn't be clueful enough to just Google "SOC" +"Global Crossing" > +SOC > > (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+crossing%22+%2B%22SOC%22+%2Bc > ontact) > > What I infer from you is "right... Buddy go ahead and do it... Then > the whole world will be screaming about not-so-important shtuff!" > If this is the case, what's to stop them from using Google. For the > most part, we can infer a large portion of users outside of those > with *some* form of networking concepts/experience, can use and know > what nslookup is for. Placing relevant information is not going to > "cripple SOC" no more than Google would. > > > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ > J. Oquendo > SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP > > "Enough research will tend to support your > conclusions." - Arthur Bloch > > "A conclusion is the place where you got > tired of thinking" - Arthur Bloch > > 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E >
