Indeed. And that's not going to help them or their customer's in the least the next time they need Verizon's cooperation to resolve an issue. You would never see this type of behavior on the NANOG mailing list which has been on the front line of communications between ISPs and providers for BGP issues since the beginning of the commercial internet. It is very much a "community" with reciprocal respect and professionalism, things this blog post was devoid of.
What element of the blog post are you referring to? NANOG often speaks in jargon and obtuse-professional speak, but with large routing leaks there are always strong opinions expressed. It's been this way going back well over a decade.
Another counterexample: go search the NANOG archives for opinions on AWS, EC2, and SES. You won't find much reciprocal respect - you'll find a bunch of unabashed criticism on how AWS operates, and how that affects the internet.
This is a clash of cultures. Cloudflare knows their customers expect a fast, accurate, transparent explanation. NANOG participants are used to an environment where their dirty laundry isn't aired in public to the point where they get calls from reporters asking about it.
Cloudflare is walking a tight line where they're trying to accurately explain to a lay audience what happened to their customers. They can't assume their audience knows what AS 701 is, or BCP 38, or the DFZ, or the prior harm that BGP optimizers have been known to cause.
A "professional" NANOG thread would touch on all of that, it just wouldn't be pieced together under a single byline for a mass audience.
> You guys have repeatedly accused them of being dumb without even speaking to anyone yet from the sounds of it.
Not for lack of trying...
> Should they have been easier to reach once an issue was detected? Probably. They’re certainly not the first vendor to have a slow response time though. Seems like when an APAC carrier takes 18 hours to get back to us, we write it off as the cost of doing business.
It wasn't a slow response, it was no response. And either is unacceptable for a tier 1 carrier.
> But this industry is one big ass glass house. What’s that thing about stones again?
And other carriers are actively working to change that - including, in particular, CloudFlare.
So basically what Verizon did by looking at BCP194 and saying “nah, too much bother”??
But it’s 2019 and I can’t muster up much sympathy for a tier 1 who can’t get inbound filters and a responsive NOC implemented correctly - things which were table stakes in 2009.