Hi John,
First allow me to post a retraction, which I just posted on the MFNX board:
Curt, I'm going to take my comment about the email bounces off of the table and retract it for the moment. For the record, and in retrospect - and despite the ultimate accuracy of my inference concerning the coincidence of the email bounces with the timing of the derailment - your assertion about my methodology of reporting based on my inference being rubbish holds up, even under the loosest of scientific processes. And by the way, don't ever let anyone kid you. Crow actually *does* taste like shit.
Tomorrow I will confirm one way or the other whether this was sheer coincidence or if my inference was accurate.
In any event, I don't want to take away from MFN their due. MFN and their contractors have done a superb job in the rerouting of their own - as well as assisting with the rerouting of other carrier's - cables during the period immediately following the derailment. Kudos to the OSP crew.
=====
Having said that, let's get to your question.
"... do you ... have any other information which would call into doubt the statements from MFN?"
It could get down to semantics at some point. You will note that MFN's claim is qualified, stating that their "Internet customers" didn't incur any outages.
I don't know what to make of this, exactly, since the semantics of what constitutes "an outage" can be left to the interpretation of the beholder.
Does their claim mean that some of their Internet customers' lines weren't impacted, or compromised, initially?
Does it mean that some of their Internet customers' [ISPs/NSPs/CDNs] rerouting capabilities via Layer 3 worked as planned, on cue, and that the reason that they didn't incur "an outage" was due to some very common IP networking constructs that assure the re-routing around failed network sections, as in this event? I suspect that this is what they might be alluding to [leveraging?], but again, I'm not sure.
You might have noticed in other releases that the derailment's effects were felt wide and far on the Internet, which lends support to the notion that some of the Internet customers riding the tunnel actually did get hit, initially, but were able to successfully re-route their services over other links. Could these have been other peoples' Internet customers (WCOMs, e.g.)? I just don't know enough about the specifics to answer that question definitively.
The majority of their customers, however, are carriers who purchase strands (dark fibers, mostly), and large enterprises who subscribe to managed GbE (and other) services. It's my opinion that these last two classes of service are not covered by the claim in the Press Release.
FAC |
