AS4788 Telecom Malaysia major route leak?

Mon Jun 15 00:14:43 UTC 2015

keep in mind their target audience with that message is probably local
malaysian customers, not the world.

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:09 PM Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:

> SLAs are part of a contract, and thus only apply to the parties of the
> contract. There are no payments due to other parties. The Internet is a
> "best effort" network, with zero guarantees.
>
>  -mel beckman
>
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Rafael Possamai <rafael at gav.ufsc.br<mailto:
> rafael at gav.ufsc.br>> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if there's an official "ruling" as to who gets to pay for
> the SLA breaches?
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org<mailto:
> mel at beckman.org>> wrote:
> Raymond,
>
> But you said "A simple 'sorry' would have done." Now you're asking for
> lots more detail. Why the change?
>
>  -mel beckman
>
> > On Jun 14, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn <raymond at prolocation.net
> <mailto:raymond at prolocation.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Mel,
> >
> > Must just be me then.
> >
> > I was most likely expecting a more in depth report. Strange things
> happened. Perhaps they could post a 'what exactly happened' since this
> wasnt a average route leak.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond Dijkxhoorn
> >
> >> Op 14 jun. 2015 om 23:27 heeft Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org<mailto:
> mel at beckman.org>> het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> Raymond,
> >>
> >> They provided a "simple sorry":
> >>
> >>   "We apologise for any inconvenience caused by the service disruption."
> >>
> >> It doesn't get much more simple than that.
> >>
> >> -mel beckman
> >>
> >>> On Jun 14, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn <
> raymond at prolocation.net<mailto:raymond at prolocation.net>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hai!
> >>>
> >>> Mark, mistakes and oopses happen. No problem at all. I understand that
> completely. There is human faillure and this happenes.
> >>>
> >>> A simple 'sorry' would have done. Yet their whole message tells 'they
> did ok' In my very limited view they did NOT ok. Did i misread?
> >>>
> >>> I am also very much looking how level3 is going to prevent things like
> this. But out of own experience they will not. We have seen before that
> they implemented filtering based on customer lists. But not a per customer
> filter. They did this globally. So any l3 customer can announce routes of
> another l3 customer. While this can be changed this outage tells there is
> certainly room for improvements.
> >>>
> >>> I hope people will learn from what happened and implement proper
> filtering. Thats even more important then a message from a operator that
> didnt even understand fully what they caused to the internet globally.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Raymond Dijkxhoorn
> >>>
> >>>> Op 14 jun. 2015 om 23:04 heeft Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu
> <mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu>> het volgende geschreven:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14/Jun/15 22:55, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> >>>>> Hai!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wouw! This is what they came up with?!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hopefully Level3 will take appropriate measures. Its amazing. Really.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'Some internationally routes'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have they any idea what they did at all?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Its amazing that with parties like that the internet still works as
> is <tm> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> I wouldn't be as hard. Stuff happens - and as they said, during a
> >>>> maintenance activity, they boo-boo'ed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are Level(3) going to own up and say they should have had filters in
> >>>> place? I certainly hope they do.
> >>>>
> >>>> But more importantly, are Level(3) going to implement the filters
> >>>> against TM's circuit? Are they going to run around the network looking
> >>>> for any additional customer circuits that need plugging? That's my
> >>>> concern...
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark.
>
>