[j-nsp] Juniper Networks fail to protect Linx from outage

[Julien Goodwin]

On 05/06/12 15:43, Brent Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:10 PM, <ramesh.ngr at wipro.com> wrote:
> 
>> Wats the product? EX Series switches responsible and couldn't protect?

They're MX960's (with a Trio loadout)

See:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/presentations/Wednesday/Cobb.pdf

> More likely that someone didn't filter advertisements or re-distribution
> correctly, rather than a software bug.
> Only more details will tell, TFA was pretty lame.
> Also a shame they already blame Juniper, when it sounds like they have
> barely begun diagnosing what truly happened, not very classy at all
> (especially if it turns out to be operator error).

Except that Juniper pretty much built this (according to
friends-of-friends), so it's either Juniper engineer error or JunOS bug.
At the very least Juniper would be fully aware of the config.


-- 
Julien Goodwin
Studio442
"Blue Sky Solutioneering"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20120605/97367865/attachment.sig>