AS4788 Telecom Malaysia major route leak?

Rafael Possamai rafael at gav.ufsc.br
Mon Jun 15 00:24:29 UTC 2015


I get that much, just wondering if Level3 would have to pay an SLA breach
to its customers given the mess started with TM (even though it could have
been avoided). And I am guessing if they do, they wouldn't be able to
recover anything from TM.

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 7:07 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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>
>> 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.
>>
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list