nanog mailing list archives
Re: UUNet?
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy () knowledge com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:30:42 +0100
INSnet (admittedly not a tier-1) has a pretty neat policy on disclosure, even including a detailed description of the fixes for problems as well as the causes of them, which is nice. See <URL:http://www1.insnet.net/> for an idea of it.
Erm, how should I say this, erm "bollocks" (TM). Since their purchase by Clueless and Witless, that went out of the window. They may claim it, they may advertise it, but an increasing number of clients and potential clients (of ours) have asked us to propose multi-homing and/or renumbering projects to them - and the commonality ? INSnet. Their sales people still claim that their core network has never failed and other such crap. I know from working with their customers (more than three shall we say) that thei attitude towards disclosure and failure is one of silence. One customer got some compensation, but this was through the 'net equivalent of the Bosman ruling (for non football fans this will be meaningless :). When your are near the end of a term contract and you get screwed for 3 days on a service you naturally consider you options... Peter
Current thread:
- UUNet? Jeff Wheat (May 24)
- Re: UUNet? deeann mikula (May 24)
- Message not available
- Re: UUNet? Paul Froutan (May 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: UUNet? Andrew Lee (May 24)
- Re: UUNet? Sean Donelan (May 25)
- Re: UUNet? Brian Wallingford (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Alex Rubenstein (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Steve Kann (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Martin Cooper (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Alex Rubenstein (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Peter Galbavy (May 29)
- Re: UUNet? Sean Donelan (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Steve Kann (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Jeff Haas (May 26)
- Re: UUNet? Peter Galbavy (May 29)
- Re: UUNet? Steve Kann (May 26)