[157914] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "authority" to route?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Gauvin)
Wed Nov 14 20:10:44 2012
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: MGauvin@dryden.ca
From: Mark Gauvin <MGauvin@dryden.ca>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:09:52 -0600
In-Reply-To: <50A428D3.9090706@bogus.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Careful though cause the crayons must be crayola approved
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-11-14, at 5:28 PM, "joel jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/12 2:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Is there a common practice of providers to vet / validate requests to a=
dvertise
>>> blocks?
>> Yes, most providers whose customers request a particular route to be poi=
nted towards them will ask for ambiguous instructions, written on letterhea=
d with crayon, and signed illegibly by someone who may or may not have auth=
ority to do so but who in any case cannot be identified clearly by their sc=
rawl.
> Some providers ask for route objects and appropriate import/export=20
> policy in RADB. that fandamently no higher quality an attestation than a=
=20
> LOA but it's a lot easier to read.
>> Ideally the letterhead should be crudely constructed in photoshop and th=
en faxed across a noisy analogue line.
>>=20
>> Once you have one of those babies in your file, no lawyer can touch you.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Joe
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
