[as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes

[Joe Abley]

I feel like I've typed enough words in this thread that I might as well just type up a LOA.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14jq-ceIBhD0dVX1VqV74PkP8TAlTfY9MUkCR1ytSnt0/edit?usp=sharing

:-)

> On 7 Nov 2018, at 08:57, John van Oppen <john at vanoppen.com> wrote:
> 
> I think it depends how much of a known party someone is to a transit.   I never had any trouble getting them announced, but I have contacts at all of our transits and announce thousands of prefixes.
> 
> For a small network the experience could be much different. 
> 
> 
> John 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: as112-ops <as112-ops-bounces at dns-oarc.net> On Behalf Of Matthew Pounsett
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 1:04 PM
> To: Grant Taylor <gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net>
> Cc: as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> Subject: Re: [as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops