On 10/6/2010 5:05 PM, david raistrick wrote: > > > to be clear, I could give a damn about if we talk about this on nanog > or not. (and I agree that outages is the right place to announce > outages, and outage-discuss to discuss them). > > > my point is that facebook has moved beyond being a pure content > provider, and (much like, say, google) provide both content AND > service. I have dependancies on facebook's (as do many many others > who perhaps dont yet hire folks who even know what nanog is but > someday will) services. without them, my teams can't work and my > employeer loses signiicant figures of revenue per day. > > so facebook is very much operationally relevant for my network, and > that these mixed content/service providers will be more and more > relevant as time goes on and we as a community should figure out how > to deal with their transition from pure content to perhaps some day > pure service.
My company buys firearms, so I am going to start posting to nanog every time my service providers go down (Springfield Armory, Rock River Arms, Volkmann Custom, and Benelli). Certainly they're a website, but without that website I can't order the firearms which costs me significant figures of revenue per day. Perhaps your company buys widgets of some sort? That is not however a core networking issue. Facebook outages may be important to your company, and I do some business on there as well, but NANOG is not a list where non-bandwidth vendor outages should be reported. (unless you like guns too!) Andrew
