keep in mind their target audience with that message is probably local malaysian customers, not the world.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:09 PM Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > 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. > >
