NET99 sabotages IGC's routes NOW: The facts

Randy Epstein repstein at
Fri Mar 22 16:17:02 UTC 1996

> > *The lie:*
> > >excess of an hour. This outage was deliberately engineered by AGIS/NET99.
> > 
> > *The fact:*
> > 
> > IGC's routes were pulled from the Net99 net within 90 minutes of their being
> > turned off *at IGC's request*.

We asked for the circuit to be shutdown, not our network to be maliciously 
mangled by a disgruntled AGIS representative, in this case, Mr. Peter Kline,

> > >First, a little history:
> > >
> > *The lie:*
> > 
> > >	A few days ago, someone at Netrunner got upset with someone at 
> > >NET99/AGIS and shut off _our_ service. For some reason (we strongly 
> > >suspect a configuration error at NET99) our traffic failed to reroute 
> > >over our MCI T1 for several hours. (They have a habit of broadcasting
> > >static routes to route around outages, thus completely screwing their
> > >multi-homed customers.)
> > 
> > *The truth:*
> > 
> > The referenced disconnection did occur, and was restored.  This kind of
> > problem is a very real danger of the way Net99 colocated in certain cities.
> > That's why AGIS only colocates in POP's and private spaces.  And in the
> > event that a customer is dually homed and not running BGP, it's incumbent
> > upon the customer to make sure that *both providers* are aware of the fact
> > and properly setting local prefs.  IGC did not do that and bears full
> > responsibility for any failure to route properly during an outage.

Peter:  Why did it occur?  Where did we lie?  OK, we'll make this easy
for the folks at home.

IGC's side of the Netrunner incident:  Mark Cole from Netrunner intentionally
shutdown OUR Net99 T1 because he couldn't reach Alan, the NOC Manager at
AGIS/Net99 for hours.  He got upset at your company, and took it out on us.

(ok Peter, your turn, fill in the blank now)

NET99's side of the story:

> > Aha: a true statement:
> > >	We asked AGIS for a one month refund to compensate us for our 
> > >losses due to the sabotage. Instead, they issued us a _one_day_ credit. 

Yes, of course it was true, we don't lie out of our ass like AGIS.

> > Ah, another true statement:
> > >We got upset, both with the ability of our T to pass traffic, with 
> > >NET99's continual routing problems, with NET99's backbone being 
> > >disassembled from under us, and with NET99/AGIS's continual delays in 
> > >migrating us to the AGIS network. We asked them to discontinue our service.
> > 
> > True, but we certainly wouldn't have left them without a circuit.  We've
> > tried mightily to install a new circuit to their premises, and ran into a
> > b8zs facilities problem.  We could have installed it AMI as a temporary
> > measure with no problem.

NOT TRUE AT ALL.  There are PLENTY of B8ZS facilities where we are.
That's funny.  In fact, if anyone would like to verify, feel free to call
our BellSouth rep, Shamus Murphy at 305-351-3949.  Also, we don't have
any requirement that says we MUST have B8ZS, AMI would have been fine had
it been offered or there was any mention of a problem.  Peter, you're not
a very good liar.

> > *Another LIE*
> > >	They did. They also deliberately and maliciously began 
> > >broadcasting more specific routes for the individual class C networks in 
> > >our CIDR block. (We confirmed this with MCI.)
> > 
> > *The truth:*
> > 
> > Over the months various static routes have been installed by various people
> > on Net99 to route around some problems (a practice which predates our
> > purchase).  You run into some curious situations like a static on a Chicago
> > router pointing to Phoenix.  In this case, there were statics of differing
> > prefix lengths on different routers.  The aggregate address statement got
> > pulled, and we didn't catch the more specifics on another router.  As soon
> > as we found out what happened, we pulled them.  In fact, we pulled them
> > while we were on the phone with MCI so that they could confirm that they
> > were gone.

Oh, so AGIS is NOT responsible for the actions of Net99?  Didn't you purchase
Net99 as a whole, including liabilities?

> > *Another LIE*
> > >	I contacted MCI again and they contacted AGIS/NET99 with the
> > >ultimate threat being for MCI to stop carrying AGIS' traffic if they would
> > >not cease broadcasting the bogus routes. Shortly after being contacted by
> > >MCI, AGIS/NET99 stopped announcing the bogus routes to MCI, but continued
> > >advertising these routes to their other peers at the NAPs.
> > 
> > Nope.  Like I said, MCI didn't threaten us at all, and worked with us to see
> > that the routing was correct.  Net99 isn't announcing those routes anywhere.
> > Both AGIS and Net99 announce all routes at all exchange points to all
> > providers in compliance with our peering contracts.  If MCI had called back
> > and said, "we still have a problem," we'd work with them until it was taken
> > care of.

MCI contacted AGIS many times, finally, taking action into their own hands.
This will all come out in court as we have MCI engineers that would be glad
to testify.

More information about the NANOG mailing list