And by the way, don't ever let anyone kid you. Crow actually *does* taste like shit.
Been there, concur.
You will note that MFN's claim is qualified, stating that their "Internet customers" didn't incur any outages.
I noticed that too, after I posted, and I guess I should have made mention of it after my first comment.
Does their claim mean that some of their Internet customers' lines weren't impacted, or compromised, initially?
I don't see how one gets "some of their Internet customers" from their statement which was to my way of thinking very specific: "MFN's Internet customers experienced no service interruption due to the damage or during the repairs as IP traffic had been immediately rerouted following the incident."
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.
The "very common IP networking constructs that assure the re-routing around failed network sections" is probably what they were referring to, but again, you refer to "some of their Internet customers" and I'm not sure why. The fact that MFNX isn't responsible for creating the redundancy surely doesn't lessen its value to the customer, does it?
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.
Maybe not. That would make their qualified press release make more sense, so is probably true. However, I work for a company that has purchased dark fiber from MFN (among others) and was told by some of our folks who should know that we were handling our own redundancy. I was not directly involved and therefore don't know if redundancy from MFN was an option, and if so what the specifics were around guarantees of differing locations, etc. It was clear from the beginning, however, that MFN wasn't promising something they couldn't deliver.
You would probably know much better than I, but I suspect that in arrangements such as this, buying redundancy from another carrier is a preferred option, to improve the separation. Your comment in another post (I think it was you, sorry if I err) about transparency to customers wrt things like this is key, though, since one could easily buy redundancy from two providers, both of whom ran their fiber through the same tunnel! |
