North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: BGP instability (was Re: Exodus Down)
- From: Adam Rothschild
- Date: Sun Jun 24 02:36:47 2001
[ Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and I'm not about to dispense
potentially bogus legal advice, especially on a technical list like
this. I've you've got problems with the Exodus NDA and the lack of
open communication resulting from it - perceived or otherwise - you
might want to drop <firstname.lastname@example.org> a line. ]
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:49:21PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
> Hmmmmm... You somehow found a way to get this information without
> agreeing to the NDA? Impressive. (For the people around here who
> aren't Exodus customers: subscribing to their network
> engineering/outage list theoretically implies agreeing to an NDA,
> which is presumably why no one here mentioned this)
Is that to insinuate that all Exodus customers have signed the mystical
customer NDA? Or more importantly, that this document will even hold
up in court?
And, how all-encompassing is this document? Passing around
"confidential" notices of facilities issues is likely a bad thing(TM).
But, are customers forbidden from publishing uptime and environmental
statistics they've collected in the course of normal monitoring, if
such statistics could indicate problems with their IDC's power (got
blackouts in Sunnyvale and Jersey City?) and HVAC?
That said, if you want to play by the rules, I've found the following
to be a far more useful resource than NANOG speculation/FUD, for both
customers and non-customers alike:
echo subscribe | mail email@example.com
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 08:47:08PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Trying to apply an NDA to outage information has always struck me as
> a bit stupid. After all, NDA or not, people know you had an outage,
> what they don't know is your explanation why it happened. As we've
> seen, when there is a lack of good information, people will make up
> stories to fit.
I could not agree more.
>From a PR/damage control standpoint, I guess I can understand the
reasoning behind tagging all Exodus outage notifications with the
words "CONFIDENTIAL" and "NDA" in big bold letters. And it's quite
possible that the network operators negatively impacted by this veil
of secrecy are a vocal minority. Still, some non-confidential
communication along the lines "there's a problem, we're working on it,
you might not see it yet, but there's a problem and we're going to get
it fixed for you in a way that's as efficient as possible!*%$!" (see:
GENU NOC tour movie) beats the alternatives. :-)
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 12:05:50AM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
> > 3. The information received via the list is considered
> > confidential information, not to be reproduced in any form
> > without prior written approval of Exodus.
> In any case, #3 would be violated by posting NANOG about any
> information on that list, IMHO.