nanog mailing list archives
Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical)
From: prue () ISI EDU
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:09:25 -0800
Jeremiah, We don't require a written note from the other ISP. We do however require the customer to get the other ISP to send us E-mail saying it is OK. We won't route the prefixes unless we get this. I trust that e-mail won't be forged. If the customer does manage to forge it and I get a subsequent complaint from the ISP, who then asserts they never gave permission, I can always disable the routes and deal with the dishonest customer. You are doing just about the right thing. I think getting written permission is a bit too officious. Walt Los Nettos
Current thread:
- route announcement question (political rather than technical) Jeremiah Kristal (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Jeremiah Kristal (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Alex P. Rudnev (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Jeremiah Kristal (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Alex P. Rudnev (Mar 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) prue (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Jeff Weisberg (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Vadim Antonov (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Alex P. Rudnev (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Jeff Weisberg (Mar 24)
- Re: route announcement question (political rather than technical) Charles Sprickman (Mar 24)