Thanks, Jaap!
Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
[...]
> PS. The last time I looked, all contracts with (g)TLD registries
> has various names reserved, among them, RIPE. So, default RIPE.$TLD
> is reserved. I guess that is to stop delegations like ripe.org.
Fair enough.
So we'll pay for some 1000 or more RI
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/11/2014 11:16, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
>> Let's have RIPE.INT removed.
>
>
> tbh, I see no reason to remove ripe.int.
[...]
> Please leave it alone.
In order to achieve or conserve - what?
> Nick
Wilfried
Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> At Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:22:09 +,
> Jim Reid wrote:
>
>>On 17 Nov 2014, at 15:49, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>3/ RIPE NCC has been assigned ripe.int in the early 2000's. We are
>>>currently not using ripe.int, other than by redirecting to ripe.net. If
>>>the community a
Well, this may be seen as a stupid question from a DNS DAU,
but can you explain what ripe.int (an international treaty organisation?)
and ripen.cc are used for?
Thanks,
Wilfried
Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Most of the zones that the RIPE NCC signs with DNSSEC have trust ancho
