Hey, QWEST clean up your network

Fri Aug 29 04:41:12 UTC 2003

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 09:51 PM, John Brown wrote:
>
> Given general operational nature, I posted to NANOG, so that:
> 1. money can talk, others will see one view of this provider

Don't talk with other peoples money, talk with your own.  If
you plan to post to NANOG, it'd be a wise assumption that a
significant subset of the folks here reside on other lists
you post to as well.

> 2. operationally maybe something will get done

Perhaps.  Though if/when it does, it'll be Qwest and
you that will be involved, no one here.

> 3. policy wise maybe this provider will change its policy

Perhaps, though given the discussions on this and a
hundred other lists in the last three weeks, I'm not
sure providers know what to do.  As Sean points out,
every other email contradicts the previous.

If I filter, I'm responsive, clueful & saving the Internet.
When something breaks as a result, I'm clueless and trying
to play netpolice, violating my SLA, plain suck, and need
to just worry about delivering packets.

> 4. Qwest said their people had installed the ACL's properly
>    my evidence is to the contrary.

Hence the need to further engage with Qwest, folks here
will be of little benefit at the end of the day.

> The customer that was impacted is certainly considering
> their options.  I suspect they will vote with their checkbook.
>
> PS: Slew == 1 Private email list, 1, Well known public list
>             1 Local Public-ish list.
>
> Slew != as large as it may have sounded...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall a strikingly
similar message posted to several mailing lists regarding
very similar topics and the same provider within the past
.. 4 days (no, it was 2 days)?  Had it not been for that I
wouldn't have bothered posting.  One attempt to humiliate
your provider in order to trigger some action is perhaps
arguable, two or more is just plain annoying.

> Policies are sometimes in place for good reasons, sometimes
> because the makers of said policy are void clue. To assume
> they are inplace for good reason is a leap imho.

So providers should play netpolice or Internet-Firewall-provider
some amount of time, depending on _your gauge of the activity of
a given incident?  Folks need to realize that if large networks
didn't have policies of this sort in place they'd be blocking pretty
much every port on every interface by now..

You can't have it both ways...

-danny