North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Need BGP clueful contact at Global Crossing

  • From: Matthew Petach
  • Date: Thu Dec 14 20:11:06 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=jIVur6UiyllROBWARd2lJMX4heiUAN8wy1ejTscFgZ5yZbbnPV6mf8KFWkhEXITBVED/YVhcjH95/RrKKHTblTYNPxVCe2PfKu7yIwXZEAkVWm/IPpAWQDaUS5Iqd5uhOOOIHqw4N6BYqxS886TfTUwdPgg1NLn6T6QD4xl7brY=

On 12/14/06, Lasher, Donn <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14 Dec 2006 09:47:46 -0500, Michael A. Patton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If there are any BGP clueful contacts at Global Crossing listening
>> if someone listening wants to forward this to them :-), I would
>> appreciate your getting in touch.

>Out of curiousity, why do you think anyone here on NANOG would be
willing to bother the
>clueful contacts they know at provider (X) based on an email like this?
It's absolutely

Having been on both sides of an issue like this one, I'd much rather see
polite requests like the original requestor, rather than a 10 page dump
on why provider X is severely borked. Good netiquette, seems to me.
10 page dump is excessive; but a one or two line
"I'm seeing bad advertisements from AS ZZZZ at the following peering
location" goes a long way to explain what the need and urgency is
around the issue.