Hello Mel, Must just be me then.
I was most likely expecting a more in depth report. Strange things happened. Perhaps they could post a 'what exactly happened' since this wasnt a average route leak. Thanks, Raymond Dijkxhoorn > Op 14 jun. 2015 om 23:27 heeft Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> het volgende > geschreven: > > Raymond, > > They provided a "simple sorry": > > "We apologise for any inconvenience caused by the service disruption." > > It doesn't get much more simple than that. > > -mel beckman > >> On Jun 14, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn <raym...@prolocation.net> >> wrote: >> >> Hai! >> >> Mark, mistakes and oopses happen. No problem at all. I understand that >> completely. There is human faillure and this happenes. >> >> A simple 'sorry' would have done. Yet their whole message tells 'they did >> ok' In my very limited view they did NOT ok. Did i misread? >> >> I am also very much looking how level3 is going to prevent things like this. >> But out of own experience they will not. We have seen before that they >> implemented filtering based on customer lists. But not a per customer >> filter. They did this globally. So any l3 customer can announce routes of >> another l3 customer. While this can be changed this outage tells there is >> certainly room for improvements. >> >> I hope people will learn from what happened and implement proper filtering. >> Thats even more important then a message from a operator that didnt even >> understand fully what they caused to the internet globally. >> >> Thanks, >> Raymond Dijkxhoorn >> >>> Op 14 jun. 2015 om 23:04 heeft Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> het >>> volgende geschreven: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 14/Jun/15 22:55, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: >>>> Hai! >>>> >>>> Wouw! This is what they came up with?! >>>> >>>> Hopefully Level3 will take appropriate measures. Its amazing. Really. >>>> >>>> 'Some internationally routes' >>>> >>>> Have they any idea what they did at all? >>>> >>>> Its amazing that with parties like that the internet still works as is >>>> <tm> ... >>> >>> I wouldn't be as hard. Stuff happens - and as they said, during a >>> maintenance activity, they boo-boo'ed. >>> >>> Are Level(3) going to own up and say they should have had filters in >>> place? I certainly hope they do. >>> >>> But more importantly, are Level(3) going to implement the filters >>> against TM's circuit? Are they going to run around the network looking >>> for any additional customer circuits that need plugging? That's my >>> concern... >>> >>> Mark.
