On 14 Dec 2006 09:47:46 -0500, Michael A. Patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there are any BGP clueful contacts at Global Crossing listening (or if someone listening wants to forward this to them :-), I would appreciate your getting in touch.
Out of curiousity, why do you think anyone here on NANOG would be willing to bother the clueful contacts they know at provider (X) based on an email like this? It's absolutely content-free. Now, if you included examples of BGP announcements that were being leaked that shouldn't be, or prefixes of yours that they were accidentally hijacking, or traceroutes going from San Jose to Paris and then back to Palo Alto within their network, or some other level of operationally interesting content, then it's much more likely the issue would be passed along either via forwarding the email, or, if the issue was sufficiently interesting, via a more immediate channel (cell phone/IM/IRC/smoke signal/INOC-DBA phone/etc). But as it currently stands, my view of Global Crossing's network doesn't show any problems worth contacting them about, so I'm unlikely to pass along your request. For all I know, you might really be a terrorist out to collapse their infrastructure by sleep depriving their backbone engineers night after night with inane requests until their REM-deprived brains fat-finger the router configs into oblivion. And that just wouldn't be good. So. How about trying again, but with relevant content that indicates an operational issue with their network, and then we can pass that along to the right folks who can look into it. Thanks! Matt (not now, nor ever have been affiliated with 3549, in case there's any possibility of confusion)
