On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:04:46PM -0500, Lauren P. Burka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is thought to have said:
> from cumulative mistakes and such) was spanning tree algorithms. I > thought this was very interested and mailed to the Glob author asking > if there was more public information about what happened. There was an extensive thread about this (most of it speculation) on the NANOG mailing list. However one post by a Cisco employee who apparantly worked on the issue: http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0212/0069.html provides some details on what happened, how it got to be like that in the first place, how the problem was fixed short term and the long term plan. > We should be grateful to BI for making this information public so we > have examples of how things shouldn't be done and what it can cost to > make this kind of mistake. This is also a good illustration for > something that network geeks have been telling me, but that I didn't > understand at a gut level, namely the importance of keeping routing > and similar messes on layer 3, not layer 2. BI has been very open about the whole incident, which is refreshing. ISTR hearing that a HBS case study was being done as well. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tabor J. Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fsck It! Just another victim of the ambient morality --- Send mail for the `bblisa' mailing list to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Mail administrative requests to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
