[156908] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC becomes Visio
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Fri Sep 28 17:35:19 2012
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:35:02 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1209281558380.1104@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Cc: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>> Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a
>> customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what
>> I dont know).
>>
>> Has anybody else seen this brain damage?
>
> I can understand wanting to diagram a complex design, so everyone
> involved has a clear picture of what needs to happen, but for an ISP to
> bring up BGP to a customer? If that's not something that can be done in
> a relatively cookie-cutter fashion, there is something horribly broken
> with that ISP.
>
> My diagram would be something along the lines of
>
> your_router --------[GIG-E WITH BGP]-------- my_router = :)
>
> your_router --------[GIG-E WITH NO BGP]-------- my_router = :(
>
> jms
>
I figured they are expecting something other than cookie cutter, so I
gave them a multi session + multi hop. 4 boxes with labels, 4 lines and
some router commands in vendor 'C' language in a text box.
If they dont like that, they can provide me with their own diagram.
Someone did mention that perhaps its a vetting/hoop-jumping process.
My takeaway is that it is always easier to not accept the circuit until
BGP is up, rather then saving that for a step 2.
Joe
