[as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes

[Matthew Pounsett]

I think we're getting a long way off the topic of whether an LOA would be useful, or whether there are better ways to convince upstreams to carry the routes.  Most of the discussion has surrounded how people prefer AS112 be routed, as opposed to how to get AS112 routes accepted in the first place.  It doesn't seem like we're solving Siyuan's problem.

So, in an attempt to refocus things .. assume that an AS112 operator has good reasons for wanting to announce AS112 prefixes over transit.

Has anyone had problems convincing an upstream to accept AS112 routes where pointing them at the RFC was not sufficient?  Did something else work, or were you left not being able to get routes accepted by that upstream?  I'm trying to get at whether there are common cases where an LOA would be useful.

Matt Pounsett
DNS-OARC Systems Engineering



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/private/as112-ops/attachments/20181106/02cd0a5c/attachment-0001.sig>