On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 05:03 Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> wrote:
> In my experience dealing with cross-connect LOAs at Equinix SY1/2, SY3, > SY4, SY5 and ME1, Equinix have always requested an LoA from the Z-side. > Never heard of an LoA not being required for a cross-connect otherwise, how > would they know it's a legit request? However, cross-connect LoAs are > beyond the scope of this topic. > Agree. That's LOA to execute carrier facilities assignment (CFA).That's a three party transaction that is the A and Z ends telling the third party, $facilityTech, how to run the patch cable and provide evidence for billing. ROA would have zero impact here and as you note beyond the scope of the topic. > I've also only seen this with smaller customers requesting their upstreams > allow the route through their filters. If upstreams don't ask, how do they > validate you (or your customer) have the authority to originate the prefix? > I understand there comes a point where a T1 network has to accept any route > that is advertised to it, however, ROAs (and ASPA when it becomes > mainstream) I believe can help secure routing, even at a T1 level. > For prefix advertisements on my behalf, twice. In both cases I thought why? The prefix contacts are in whois and they could email and ask. It would've taken more time to object than to write the sentence to 'please allow temporary use of X.X.0.0./16 until revoked'. And then I can't ever recall sending the 'revoked' letter after moving on from the provider. The project is harmless. Perhaps in other parts of the work there's more paper shuffling like that? Warm regards, -M<
