Re: SBCglobal routing loop.

["Aaron Glenn" <aaron.glenn () gmail com>]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Paul Wall <pauldotwall () gmail com> wrote:
> I think that's precisely the problem, that the issue could not have
> been handled "though other methods".

I think it should be clear to those posting here as a last ditch
effort that they should certainly outline the steps they've already
taken -- basically justifying their post to NANOG: "I tried X, waited
Y, got Z, and now I'm here"

> I agree NANOG is not a replacement for NOCs, but what about when the
> NOCs are utterly useless and the issue is global in scope?

that's definitely one of the reasons *I* think this mailing lists
exists. infact I bet if I wasn't lazy I could find something to that
effect in the charter or nanog.org site.

> Given the parties involved, I'd like to think that Logan tried to go
> through standard channels prior to posting.  Please realize this is no
> slight against nLayer, but rather, "the new AT&T" and their concept of
> customer service.

SBC/ATT/whatever peering ops was always my absolute favorite to work
with back when I actually worked in a NOC. hopefully that hasn't
changed much in the past year.

> Paul