Re: LoA (Letter of Authorization) for Prefix Filter Modification?

["Christian Koch" <christian () broknrobot com>]

I dont mind, i think it is another good step towards 'good filtering'
but...i think the PITA part is
downstream 'clueless' customers, who may need an explanation on prefix
hijacking and the state
of the internet today, and that these are all just combined efforts to
minimize the risk of accepting allocations
that don't belong to you.


Christian




On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Rodriguez, Mauricio wrote:
>
> > Recently, one of our Transit providers has started requiring a Letter of
> > Authorization for addition of any of our own Transit customers' prefixes to
> > their filters.  The verbiage of the LoA basically states that the owner of
> > the assignment or allocation (not necessarily our customer) allows us to
> > advertise their prefixes through our service.
> >
> > Is this a common practice?  Our past experience indicates that a simple
> > request to a NOC or update of a routing registry usually is sufficient.
>
> It's not unheard of.  Most providers don't require it, but I have run into a
> few who do.  It's a minor PITA compared to the web interfaces some providers
> make you use to request filter updates.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
>  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net                |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________