[109100] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AT&T routing issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Campbell, Alex)
Tue Nov 4 22:46:06 2008
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:45:59 +1100
From: "Campbell, Alex" <Alex.Campbell@ogilvy.com.au>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Many thanks to all those who replied. It did turn out to be a filter
that needed updating at 7018, which was very quickly fixed by their
team.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:brian@meganet.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 2:06 PM
To: Charles Gucker
Cc: Campbell, Alex; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AT&T routing issue
:In short yes. AT&T uses a customer specific access list to perform a
:uRPF like function. That is, if your provider did not request for
:their provider to have AT&T update their filter.
Indeed. We've used ATT MIS for many years and have been happy with
their
policies (which have blunted quite a few DDOS attacks), and their
response
to acl mod requests. They do tend to take longer than I'd like
(on the order of several business days) for standard requests, though if
you request expedition, response time is impressive.
Overall, thumbs up.
:AT&T MIS Maintenance
:888-613-6330 Prompt-3, 2
:rm-awmis@ems.att.com
Yep. Always quite responsive. As with any other vendor, if you feel
the
person handling the call isn't qualified, escalate.
