-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jordan Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Who are you to start publicly trying to deeper people? Nlayer has a > great noc, I am a customer, and know many more. They are currently > migrating from 4474 to 4436 due to the asn issue, and its not > illegal to source a route from two asn's. AS4474 is not theirs, for that matter it currently doesn't belong to anyone as there is not valid contact information registered in the ARIN database. > They're almost done with the > migration, I didn't see any emails from you when cogent was renumbering > from 16631 to 174 asking for a depeering. Because I am not watching IPv4 tables and cogent announced it. Also both those ASN's are properly registered in the registries. Next to that Cogent does respond to inquiries. > If you just emailed or called > they would have glady resolved your issue. Can you explain the > operational problem with this dual announcement? I seem to be missing it. I am a user of the internet who asked for a answer at their NOC from which I got *no* reply, except for ticket numbers, even after sending 2 messages the last two weeks. Which then caused me to inquire NANOG which is a correct list to do so as nLayer is a US based (North American) "ISP". Next to that mentioning nLayer to abuse-tracking people seems to also get a response that there is quite a lot of abuse in the forms of spam from them. Is that the reason they are 'migrating' to hide their paths from the spam aware people? Maybe you, as a perfect customer, can ask them to update their objects in the ARIN registry or stop hijacking internet resources? Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb/hgAA5fkAn0vQ8ShpW7djG0i9rYD0eGgy Lg90AKCveqh1xoaJWhMGAkwo+TuHoUUXXw== =X7/h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----