[161851] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Wed Mar 27 15:01:59 2013
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <10924.1364409931@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:51:35 -0500, Jack Bates said:
> > They are not, and I can think of quite a few people who would stare
> > blankly at you for making such a statement. Of course, I can think
> > of plenty of people who we'd like to see implementing BCP38 concepts
> > that would need you to define ingress and egress.
>
> Of course, the fact they don't understand ingress and egress are *totally*
> unrelated to the fact they can't figure out how to deploy BCP38, correct?
Oh, Jeezus; do we need to start seeing geek licenses[1] before we'll turn
up your BGP session or Transit link now?
Have we really sunk that low?[2]
Cheers,
-- jra
[1] Seriously; I think we need these; for escalating to Tier 3 support if
nothing else.[3]
[2] No, I don't actually want an answer to this; I'm depressed enough.
[3] "Hello, Road Runner business support!" "Yes, my Geek License number is
G 17135, and I need to speak to your backbone BGP coordinator." "I'll
transfer you right now, sir."
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
