nanog@nanog.org

NANOGers - During the Q&A portion of the ARIN Update today given at NANOG 57, I referenced some letters sent and received with regards to legacy addresses. Since a few folks have asked for a URL pointer to them, here is it: The particular q

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

ah - those were the days of glory... :) On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:06:39PM -0700, Brett Watson wrote: > Hell, we used to not have to bother notifying customers of anything, we just > fixed the problem. Reminds me a of a story I've probably shared on the past. > > 1995, IETF in Dallas. The "

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

Hell, we used to not have to bother notifying customers of anything, we just fixed the problem. Reminds me a of a story I've probably shared on the past. 1995, IETF in Dallas. The "big ISP" I worked for at the time got tripped up on a 24-day IS-IS timer bug (maybe all of them at the time did, I

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Scott Helms wrote: >> You miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple modems. > Most PPPoE L2TP setups have no ATM besides the default PVC > between the modem and the DSLAM. You still miss ATM switches to connect the card to multiple DSLAMs. >>> You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On 2/6/13 4:41 PM, Brandt, Ralph wrote: David. I am on an evening shift and am just now reading this thread. I was almost tempted to write an explanation that would have had identical content with yours based simply on Level3 doing something and keeping the information close. Responsible Vendor

RE: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

David. I am on an evening shift and am just now reading this thread. I was almost tempted to write an explanation that would have had identical content with yours based simply on Level3 doing something and keeping the information close. Responsible Vendors do not try to hide what is being do

RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Putting routers and DLAMs each CO is simply not affordable for any but the largest providers like XO.I expect Japan with its compact population centers may be different, but in the USA there are not enough people connected to any but the largest COs to make it affordable.I'm not stuck on

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 18:11, Scott Helms wrote: > I'd agree. Its a better way of doing L2 unbundling than PPPoE. Its just > PPPoE had the sharing concept baked into it so it was easy for most > operators to use historically. PPPoE has its roots in the dialup days. So Incumbents were more than happy to b

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

> However, the australian NBN model is far superior because it enables far > more flexibility such as multicasting etc. PPPoE is useless overhead if > you have the right management tools to point a customer to his ISP. (and > it also means that the wholesale infrastructure can be switch based > int

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 17:12, Scott Helms wrote: > Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that > PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any > other technology I'm aware of By default, Telus in western Canada has deployed ethernet based DSL for w

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jerome Nicolle wrote: > In non-dense areas, zone operators have to build concentration points > (kind of MMRs) for at least 300 residences (when chaining MMRs) or 1000 > residences (for a single MMR per zone). Theses MMRs often take the form > of street cabinets or shelters and have to be equiped

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Scott Helms wrote: > > > The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't > > significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no > advantage > > to doing ATM, but the r

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Scott Helms wrote: > The cost difference in a single interface card to carry an OC-3/12 isn't > significantly more than a Gig-E card. Now, as I said there is no advantage > to doing ATM, but the real cost savings in a single interface are not > significant. You miss ATM switches to connect the c

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jean, Correct, there are few things that cost nothing, but the point is here that PPPoE has been successful for open access to a far greater degree than any other technology I'm aware of (anyone else have ideas?) in North America and Europe. I'd also say that the ERX is an EOL box, but that doesn

RE: Interesting debugging: Specific packets cause some Intel gigabit ethernet controllers to reset

I have come to believe the Intel 82574L is the worst Ethernet chip in the universe.We had horrible issues with it (random bursts of dropped packets showing in ifconfig). We ended up simply putting a card based on a different chip into our systems and all our issues went away. -Original

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 16:53, Scott Helms wrote: > You realize that most commonly the L2TP LAC and LNS are just routers right? > You're not getting rid of boxes, you're just getting rid of the only open > access technology that's had significant success in the US or Europe. Actually, there is a cost. In lo

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Scott Helms wrote: > > > Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real > drawback > > to using ATM. > > High cost is the real drawback. > The cost difference in a single interface card

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Scott Helms wrote: > Actually, at the level that Eric's discussing there isn't any real drawback > to using ATM. High cost is the real drawback. >>> but the basic concept is not bad. >> >> It is not enough, even if you use inexpensive Ethernet. See >> the subject. > Why? Because, for competing

Re: Interesting debugging: Specific packets cause some Intel gigabit ethernet controllers to reset

- Original Message - > From: "Harry Hoffman" > On a similar vein here's some fun reading: > > http://travisgoodspeed.blogspot.com/2011/09/remotely-exploiting-phy-layer.html Really? That environment does not have out-of-band framing, which can't be duplicated by the data inside a framed

Re: NANOG 57 Notes from Matthew

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will be > uploading his notes there shortly: > > http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57 Oh. that'll teach me to read my inbox first before mailing out. ^_^; Yes, notes a

2013.02.06 NANOG57 day3 afternoon session notes posted

I put the notes from the afternoon session up on my website--but thanks to a great suggestion by Jay, I'm also putting them up on the nanog.cluepon.net site on the wiki, so that as folks spot my typos, they can fix them themselves, rather than wonder why goodle.com doesn't resolve for them, etc. ^

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On 13-02-06 10:16, Eric Wieling wrote: > Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their > DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network? In Bell Canada Territory, wholesale traffic between DSLAM and BAS/BRAS travels normally. The BAS establishes the PPPoE se

Re: Interesting debugging: Specific packets cause some Intel gigabit ethernet controllers to reset

On a similar vein here's some fun reading: http://travisgoodspeed.blogspot.com/2011/09/remotely-exploiting-phy-layer.html On 02/06/2013 03:33 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote: > Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of > debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to

Re: NANOG 57 Notes from Matthew

- Original Message - > From: "david raistrick" > sure would be nice if the nanog meetings were a bit better > announcedwhy do I aways find out about the orlando ones during or > after? I hadn't realized there was another one in Orlando, David; last Florida ones I knew about were Miam

Re: Interesting debugging: Specific packets cause some Intel gigabit ethernet controllers to reset

- Original Message - > From: "Kristian Kielhofner" > Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of > debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to contribute: > > http://blog.krisk.org/2013/02/packets-of-death.html > > The strangest issue I've experienced, that

Re: Interesting debugging: Specific packets cause some Intel gigabit ethernet controllers to reset

Wow, you just solved my issue with my firewall. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote: > Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of > debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to contribute: > > http://blog.krisk.org/2013/02/packets-of-death.htm

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

* Andrew Sullivan: > My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable > by a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about > why and so on. That's a side effect of Juniper's notification policy. Perhaps someone should them take them by their word ("Security pa

Interesting debugging: Specific packets cause some Intel gigabit ethernet controllers to reset

Over the year I've read some interesting (horrifying?) tales of debugging on NANOG. It seems I finally have my own to contribute: http://blog.krisk.org/2013/02/packets-of-death.html The strangest issue I've experienced, that's for sure. -- Kristian Kielhofner

Re: NANOG 57 Notes from Matthew

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will be > uploading his notes there shortly: > > http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57 I wonder how long it'll be before the spam bots take over that page. -- Darius Jaha

Re: NANOG 57 Notes from Matthew

Nice work guys - it is appreciated :) Jay Ashworth wrote: >I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will >be >uploading his notes there shortly: > >http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57 > >Cheers, >-- jra >-- >Jay R. Ashworth Baylink

NANOG 57 Notes from Matthew

I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will be uploading his notes there shortly: http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57 Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Thin

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 07:57 -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > Would you rather your ISP not maintain their devices? Are the > > consequences "so bad" of a 30 minute outage that your business > > is severely impacted? > > > > - Jared > > You had me up until that line. > > That should be expande

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Jonathan Towne wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:57:06AM -0500, Alex Rubenstein scribbled: > # The question should be more along the lines of, "why aren't you multihomed > in a way that would make a 30 minute outage (which is inevitable) irrelevant > to you? > >

2013.02.06 NANOG57 day3 morning session notes posted

Huge thanks to the program committee for pulling another great set of talks together; this really has been a top-notch bunch of content! Notes are up at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2013.02.06-NANOG57-day3-morning-session.txt As always, if my apache process wedges, let me know and I'll kick it;

Alcatel-Lucent and France Tel deploy 400G for testing

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2013/02/alcatel-lucent-and-france-telecom-surpass-100g-implement-400g/ -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http:/

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On 2/6/13 8:34 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ray Wong wrote: My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable by a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about why and so on. "Emergency work for five hours and 30 minutes disconnection" t

RE: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

Hi Ray, This topic reminds me of yesterday's discussion in the conference around getting some BCOP's drafted. it would be useful to confirm my own view of the BCOP around communicating security issues. My understanding for the best practice is to limit knowledge distribution of security relat

Re: Can OLTs separate port management by admin user?

- Original Message - > From: "Tom Taylor" > At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like > that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol) > to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that > it's implemented in the Calix de

Re: Can OLTs separate port management by admin user?

At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol) to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that it's implemented in the Calix devices is remote. Tom T On 06/02/2013 10:56 AM, Jay Ash

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

Robert, Thanks for the information, I either missed VLAN per sub set up which does make PON L2 sharing virtually the same as AE or the version of hardware/firmware I last worked on didn't support it. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Scott Helms writes: > > > On W

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Ray Wong wrote: My impression is mostly that people are left feeling uncomfortable by a massive upgrade of this sort with so little communication about why and so on. "Emergency work for five hours and 30 minutes disconnection" that turns out to take longer than 30 minutes o

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

Scott Helms writes: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <[[r...@seastrom.com]]> > wrote: > >If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement > is perhaps > even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are > approximately a

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

Given the issue was announced a week ago, I'm surprised they didn't provide some sort of emergency notification prior to the upgrade. However, I certainly understand their immediate desire to deploy this update. I don't think it's bad as the BGP one from not too long ago in that exploit code is n

Re: Metro Ethernet, VPLS clarifications

I thought that PBB was dead :) if not forget VPLS and play with PBB and PBT :) Welcome in the "twilight zone" Fabien Le 6 févr. 2013 à 16:19, Adam Vitkovsky a écrit : > And for fun you can also do: > Ethernet over PBB to VPLS > Ethernet over PBB over VPLS -that's actually called EVPN > > adam

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

> OK, having had that first cup of coffee, I can say perhaps the main reason I was wondering is I've gotten used to Level3 always being on top of things (and admittedly, rarely communicating). They've reached the top by often being a black box of reliability, so it's (perhaps unrealistically) surp

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

- Original Message - > From: "Scott Helms" > Yep, that's likely what will happen over the long term anyhow. That's why > I asked about a new apartment building in your territory. You decision > would be either run additional fiber to support each apartment as an > end point, simply provid

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

> > I think that risk low enough to take it, especially since my entire > city fits in about a 3mi radius. :-) > This is data I'd like to have had earlier, if your total diameter is 6 miles then the math will almost certainly work to home run everything, though I'd still run the numbers. > > No

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On 2/6/13 7:43 AM, Ray Wong wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:39:14AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: So, I'm wondering what is shocking that someone may have to push out some sort of upgrade either urgently or periodically that is so impacting

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

- Original Message - > From: "Benny Amorsen" > > I'm not *trying* to do the last thing. > > > > I'm trying to do the next thing. Or maybe the one after that. > > The existing copper network was in many cases built like a star with > some very long runs. This worked fine for telephony, bu

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Jay Ashworth writes: > GPON/DOCSIS/RFoG? That's one people are deploying today. > > Over the 50 year proposed lifetime of the plant? WTF knows. That's > exactly the point. > > To paraphrase Tom Peters, you don't look like a trailbreaker by > *emulating what other trailbreakers have done*. > >

Can OLTs separate port management by admin user?

- Original Message - > From: "Scott Helms" > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom > wrote: > > If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps > > even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are > > approximately as easy as each other

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

> > > > That's incorrect, you simply don't have as many available but in a > current > > "normal" build you could easily provide 100+ dark fiber leases that > extend > > from your MDF (still don't like using this term here) all the way down > > to the home or business. > > And, conversely, I could,

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:39:14AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: >> >> So, I'm wondering what is shocking that someone may have to push out some >> sort of upgrade either urgently or periodically that is so impacting and >> causes these emails

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps > even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are > approximately as easy as each other. > Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Eric Wieling wrote: > Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul > their DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network? > In the independent space this has been Ethernet for a very long time. In the RBOC space its taken longer,

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other. -r PS: The word is _conflating_, not _confounding_. Scott Helms writes: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastr

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

- Original Message - > From: "Scott Helms" > > However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology > > and you have to put active electronics out in the field. > > Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In > a normal install you're going

RE: Metro Ethernet, VPLS clarifications

And for fun you can also do: Ethernet over PBB to VPLS Ethernet over PBB over VPLS -that's actually called EVPN adam -Original Message- From: Fabien Delmotte [mailto:fdelmot...@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:07 PM To: Scott Helms Cc: NANOG; Abzal Sembay Subject: Re: Metro E

RE: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Can anyone out there in NANOGland confirm how ILECs currently backhaul their DSL customers from the DSLAM to the ILECs IP network? -Original Message- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:51 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re:

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Scott Helms writes: > > > In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open > > access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done > > using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Eric Wieling wrote: > > > I don't think it is that much more expensive to allow other > > ISPs an ATM PVC into their network. > > Wrong, which is why ATM has disappeared. > > > ATM may not be the best techno

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: > The ILECs basically got large portions of the 1996 telecom reform rules > gutted via lawsuits. DSL unbundling was part of this. See > http://quello.msu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wp-05-02.pdf The ILECs > already need a DSLAM in each CO a

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:39:14AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: > > So, I'm wondering what is shocking that someone may have to push out some > sort of upgrade either urgently or periodically that is so impacting and > causes these emails on the list. > My impression is mostly that people are lef

Re: Metro Ethernet, VPLS clarifications

Hi, My 2 cents > VPLS can be run across several different kinds of layer 1 & 2 technologies > and is independent of the underlying technology because it builds it pseudo > wires at layers 3 & 4. VPLS leverages technologies like Metro Ethernet and > MPLS to extend a business' Ethernet LAN (technic

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

> However, for any given ring, you are locked into a single technology and > you have to put active electronics out in the field. > Correct, but you can have many layer 2 rings riding your physical ring. In a normal install you're going to have over a hundred fibers in your physical ring, I'd per

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?

Scott Helms writes: > In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open > access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done > using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access > in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight for

Re: Metro Ethernet, VPLS clarifications

> > From my understanding M-Ethernet is a some kind of service. Standartized > technology that allows to connect multiple different networks. And it is > independent from physical and datalink layers. > Metro Ethernet is a datalink (layer 2) protocol. It also has physical (layer 1) specification

RE: AT&T Uverse/DSL Network Engineer DNS question

Thanks for checking guys. I checked RIR registration and they have those 2 IPs registered in Texas. I have read that AT&T uses anycast for name resolution for Uverse/DSL customers. I can only check from my account in Florida and the DNS query responses so far resolve as if I were in the Central

RE: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

> Yeah, perhaps not as elegantly worded as I would have hoped, but there are > many reasons things "go down". Just one of those elements is the internet > part, there's also transport, power, and other elements that combine to > make this complex system called the internet. If you N+N or N+1 your

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Alex Rubenstein wrote: >> Would you rather your ISP not maintain their devices? Are the >> consequences "so bad" of a 30 minute outage that your business >> is severely impacted? >> >> - Jared > > You had me up until that line. > > That should be expanded a littl

WEBCAST TODAY - FCC Network Resiliency Workshop

I know this is a topic dear to the members of the list. We are webcasting an FCC hearing today in Brooklyn on the topic of network resiliency. http://isoc-ny.org/p2/4783 It will be archived, and transcribed. -- --- Joly MacFie 218 56

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:57:06AM -0500, Alex Rubenstein scribbled: # The question should be more along the lines of, "why aren't you multihomed in a way that would make a 30 minute outage (which is inevitable) irrelevant to you? The fun part of this emergency maintenance in the northeast USA w

RE: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

> Would you rather your ISP not maintain their devices? Are the > consequences "so bad" of a 30 minute outage that your business > is severely impacted? > > - Jared You had me up until that line. That should be expanded a little ... First, I'd say, yes - many businesses would be severely impa

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Peter Ehiwe wrote: > Also received same ... > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ray Wong wrote: > >> Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency >> router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes, >> "Service Affecting"

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

Also received same ... On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Ray Wong wrote: > Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency > router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes, > "Service Affecting" (no kidding?) and the NOC line gave me the > recording about

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

I just received this email from level3 Summary Level 3 Communications will perform a mandatory network upgrade that will be service impacting and will impact devices in multiple locations. We are upgrading the code on portions of the global network to increase stability for the overall n

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

That is general guess. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:04:40PM +0200, > JP Viljoen wrote > a message of 10 lines which said: > > > the general guess I saw was that it was Juniper-related. > > Juniper Technical Bulletin PSN-2013-01-823, pr

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

ugh! On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:04 AM, JP Viljoen wrote: > On 06 Feb 2013, at 11:58 AM, Ray Wong wrote: > > Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency > > router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes, > > "Service Affecting" (no kidding?) and the N

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 01:04:40PM +0200, JP Viljoen wrote a message of 10 lines which said: > the general guess I saw was that it was Juniper-related. Juniper Technical Bulletin PSN-2013-01-823, probably?

Re: Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

On 06 Feb 2013, at 11:58 AM, Ray Wong wrote: > Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency > router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes, > "Service Affecting" (no kidding?) and the NOC line gave me the > recording about it and disconnected me. Not

Level3 worldwide emergency upgrade?

Does anyone have details on tonight's apparent worldwide emergency router upgrade? All I managed to get out of the portal was 30 minutes, "Service Affecting" (no kidding?) and the NOC line gave me the recording about it and disconnected me. -R>