This drama has reminded me of something I had been meaning to ask "the
community" for a while now. If InterNetBlargh has customer FooCo and
breaks things badly, it is fairly obvious that they both should have
their respective suits and legals hash things out over existing contracts.
But if InterNetBlargh mangles one/more routes [by virtue of, say, a
shorter AS path] for *non-customer* BazNet, without regard for WHOIS/RA
data, currently-visible announcements, registered servers, etc., what
sort of recourse is considered a Good Thing? Let's face it, typos happen,
even at major transit providers, but that means squat when your /16 goes
*poof*. Airing it as a made-for-mailinglist miniseries is just a waste
of everyone's time. What sort of action would any propose to BazNet?
Send email and I'll summarize.
Cheers,
Joe Provo
Network Operations Center
UltraNet Communications, Inc.
community" for a while now. If InterNetBlargh has customer FooCo and
breaks things badly, it is fairly obvious that they both should have
their respective suits and legals hash things out over existing contracts.
But if InterNetBlargh mangles one/more routes [by virtue of, say, a
shorter AS path] for *non-customer* BazNet, without regard for WHOIS/RA
data, currently-visible announcements, registered servers, etc., what
sort of recourse is considered a Good Thing? Let's face it, typos happen,
even at major transit providers, but that means squat when your /16 goes
*poof*. Airing it as a made-for-mailinglist miniseries is just a waste
of everyone's time. What sort of action would any propose to BazNet?
Send email and I'll summarize.
Cheers,
Joe Provo
Network Operations Center
UltraNet Communications, Inc.