nanog mailing list archives
Re: i wanna be a kpn peer
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:49:16 -0500
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is proof a network is broken.we've had this discussion 42 times. it is not proof of anything and noone has said it is. but if it was one of my areas of responsibility leaking something strange, i sure would not mind folk mentioning it here. in fact, i would be greatful.
It is not proof. No one said it was. And no one said you said it was. :)
That said, I would be grateful if someone showed me I screwed up too - in private. In public, I'm not so sure. Especially if someone only -thought- I screwed up.
One could argue that it is difficult to reach the proper people privately (although "noc@" might be a start, or iNOC-DBA, or ...). One could also argue that public notification is better than no notification. But then one would might want to mention that private channels had been exhausted in one's public notification.
Anyway, this "one" is sorry if that "one" thought one was being curmudgeonly. :)
-- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- i wanna be a kpn peer Randy Bush (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Robert Boyle (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Chris L. Morrow (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Randy Bush (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Alexander Koch (Jan 10)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer Niels Bakker (Jan 11)
- Re: i wanna be a kpn peer David Freedman (Jan 12)