[157910] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "authority" to route?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Wed Nov 14 18:27:41 2012
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:27:15 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <727C5943-1BA0-470A-8BF7-05188C164E4F@hopcount.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11/14/12 2:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
>
>> Is there a common practice of providers to vet / validate requests to advertise
>> blocks?
> Yes, most providers whose customers request a particular route to be pointed towards them will ask for ambiguous instructions, written on letterhead with crayon, and signed illegibly by someone who may or may not have authority to do so but who in any case cannot be identified clearly by their scrawl.
Some providers ask for route objects and appropriate import/export
policy in RADB. that fandamently no higher quality an attestation than a
LOA but it's a lot easier to read.
> Ideally the letterhead should be crudely constructed in photoshop and then faxed across a noisy analogue line.
>
> Once you have one of those babies in your file, no lawyer can touch you.
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
