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; d=gmail.com; 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
(or
>> 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
>content-free.

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.