Need BGP clueful contact at Global Crossing

On 14 Dec 2006 09:47:46 -0500, Michael A. Patton <MAPmap-ne.com> wrote:
>> If there are any BGP clueful contacts at Global
Crossing listening
(or 
>> if someone listening wants to forward this to them
, I
would 
>> appreciate your getting in touch.

>Out of curiousity, why do you think anyone here on NANOG
would be
willing to bother the
>clueful contacts they know at provider (X) based on an
email like this?
It's absolutely
>content-free.

Having been on both sides of an issue like this one, I'd
much rather see
polite requests like the original requestor, rather than a
10 page dump
on why provider X is severely borked. Good netiquette, seems
to me.

On 12/14/06, Lasher, Donn <DLashernewedgenetworks.com>
wrote:
>
> Having been on both sides of an issue like this one,
I'd much rather see
> polite requests like the original requestor, rather
than a 10 page dump
> on why provider X is severely borked. Good netiquette,
seems to me.

so NANOG becomes a paging service with no vetting process?
if you need
people to tap their contacts because you've exhausted every
other
avenue, you're gonna have to at least explain, if not prove,
why you
need someone else on this list to go out of their way to put
you in
contact with someone (grammarians can hit me in a private
email for
that sentence).

and who knows, in the process of reading that 10 page dump,
perhaps
someone on the list can not only point out the real problem
to you -
but put you incontact with an even more appropriate contact.
seems
more efficient for everyone involved, to me.

On 12/14/06, Lasher, Donn <DLashernewedgenetworks.com>
wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2006 09:47:46 -0500, Michael A. Patton
<MAPmap-ne.com> wrote:
> >> If there are any BGP clueful contacts at
Global Crossing listening
> (or
> >> if someone listening wants to forward this to
them ,
I would
> >> appreciate your getting in touch.
>
> >Out of curiousity, why do you think anyone here on
NANOG would be
> willing to bother the
> >clueful contacts they know at provider (X) based on
an email like this?
> It's absolutely
> >content-free.
>
> Having been on both sides of an issue like this one,
I'd much rather see
> polite requests like the original requestor, rather
than a 10 page dump
> on why provider X is severely borked. Good netiquette,
seems to me.

10 page dump is excessive; but a one or two line
"I'm seeing bad advertisements from AS ZZZZ at the
following peering
location" goes a long way to explain what the need and
urgency is
around the issue.