SLAs are part of a contract, and thus only apply to the parties of the contract. There are no payments due to other parties. The Internet is a "best effort" network, with zero guarantees.
-mel beckman On Jun 14, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Rafael Possamai <raf...@gav.ufsc.br<mailto:raf...@gav.ufsc.br>> wrote: Does anyone know if there's an official "ruling" as to who gets to pay for the SLA breaches? On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org<mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote: Raymond, But you said "A simple 'sorry' would have done." Now you're asking for lots more detail. Why the change? -mel beckman > On Jun 14, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn > <raym...@prolocation.net<mailto:raym...@prolocation.net>> wrote: > > 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
