[143355] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Sun Aug 7 11:49:29 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <121127.1312731571@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 08:48:14 -0700
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: "<nanog@nanog.org> list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is one of the reasons that I thought a useful output from the opsec =
or idr working group would be a documented set of community functions. =
Not mapped to values mind you. but I really like to say to providers "do =
you support rfc blah communities" or "what's your rfc blah community =
mapping" rather than "what communities do you support".
On Aug 7, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:53:05 CDT, Graham Wooden said:
>> I should also note that Centurylink has been less than cooperative on =
even
>> thinking about changing my routes to a pref of 70 on our behalf (they =
don't
>> accept communities). I think time to get the account rep involved ...
>=20
> "they don't accept communities"??!? Just... wow. ;)
>=20
> (That's if they flat out don't support it - there's a separate ring of =
Hell
> reserved for the ones who do support it but forget to document the =
part
> about singing the Zimbabwe national anthem backwards while standing on
> your head...)
