[Outages-discussion] [outages] Facebook down?

[Keegan Holley]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:28:07PM -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > Some operations do depend on Facebook.
>
> But why should the rest of us indulge this exceedingly poor choice?
>
> I expect to see traffic on "outages" that discusses Internet/telecom
> infrastructure outages -- that is, fiber cuts, circuit issues, prefix
> snafus, DNS botches, carrier downtime, etc.  I don't expect to see
> traffic about any particular web site, *unless* that traffic is using
> that web site as an example of what the problem is, or as part of a
> symptom report, or to delineate the scope of a problem.  Not Facebook,
> not Google, not Amazon, not eBay -- none of them are important enough
> or will ever be important enough to merit the same level of concern. [1]
>

Leave it to a bunch of geeks to think that they own a system as large as the
internet.  That's like TV operators saying they want to hear when
a satellite is having issues but not when a specific content provider such
as NBC is offline.  I'm not sure it's fair to companies who make their money
from content or selling access to it to be segregated from those who focus
on wholesale network connections.  Maybe we can create an "almost-outages"
list with exactly the same members to separate issues with edge networks
from those in core networks.  Although people haven't seemed to figure out
how to use the outages-discussion list so I have little faith that this will
work either.

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20101118/be18fb52/attachment.html>