
On Fri, 29 June 2001, Rishi Singh wrote:
> I offering a general apology to the entire nanog list. At least one
> subscriber found my post about the NASDAQ outage not relevant to the charter
> of NANOG.

Those that don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

The fact it was NASDAQ is not very interesting.  The fact some error
by a network technician disrupted a large, normally reliable is relevant
to network operators.  Did the network technician have a chance, make a
mistake, or was it inherent to the equipment or design?  Was the root
cause a vulnerability that other network operators may also have in
their network.

The reason why NRIC and the FCC require telecommunication carriers report
errors isn't to punish bad network technicians.  But to identify and correct
common errors which may exist in multiple carriers.

Sticking your head in the sand, and not talking about it doesn't fix anything.

If you do not know what went wrong with Worldcom's network, you don't know
if your network may be vulnerable to the same thing.  Problems in non-Internet
networks have later shown up in the same equipment and operations used for
the Internet.



