Hmm, thought it was a NANOG prerequisite to be able to do a google search. Should be pretty easy to find this info with that tool in your handbag.
With the above tool I've got your phone # and would be happy to call you if you'd like clarification on our process. Please just reply to me off-list. Randy On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote: > > In message <AANLkTikMqBx=cu5autr7addyn7u7wbeoww2qa9wdz...@mail.gmail.com>, > rr <rook...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>For the record, Integra Telecom did have LOA for said netblock. >>Needless to say LOA was forged on company letterhead with appropriate >>signatures. Once brought to our attention we attempted to contact >>customer to no avail, netblock has been removed until they prove >>otherwise. >> >>Randy Rooney > > > Mr. Rooney, > > Since you have been kind enough to drop by, you know, to help clarify what > went on here, I wonder if you would mind very much just providing a couple > of small additional clarifications. > > First, could you tell me what job title you hold at Integra Telecom please? > (I wouldn't even ask, but you are apparently posting from a gmail account, > and that always makes me a bit... well... leary.) > > Second, because I am actually an ignorant son-of-a-bitch (despite any > possible appearances to the contrary), I wonder if, just for my personal > edification, you could tell me exactly what "LOA" stands for in this context. > (Yes, I really don't know, but would like to.) > > Thirdly, I'd very much like to know if your company is in the habit of > providing services (e.g. transit, routing) to other parties at no charge, > and for extended periods of time > > Lastly, assuming that your company is NOT in the habit of providing services > (e.g. routing, transit) to other parties at no charge, then I think that I > can speak for many here when I say that I would really appreciate it if you > could tell me/us whose name was on the check that was used to pay for the > services that your company apparently did provide to the 159.223.0.0/16 IP > block, apparently for a period in excess of three months. > > If in fact the other party involved in this incident deceived and defrauded > you in some way, then I hardly think that this information, i.e. the name > on the check that paid for all this, is something that Integra has any > special obligation to keep secret. Even if there ever had been any such > obligation, leagl, ethical, or otherwise, I do believe that the other > party involved has now nullified any such obligation by their very act > of comitting a rather outrageous and damaging fraud upon your company. > > I look forward to your response. > > > Regards, > rfg > >