Hi Everyone,
Just a gentle reminder that May 1st is the last day to express
support for this Open Petition at ARIN's Public Policy Mailing List
(arin-ppml).
Best Regards,
Carlos
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Carlos Friaças via NANOG wrote:
Hi,
Just to let everybody know that a petition was s
On 30/4/19 10:38 am, Chris Adams wrote:
> I still refer to ASes by companies that haven't existed in ages... 701
> is UUNet, 3561 is MCI, 1 is BBN, etc. :) I don't handle name changes
> well (I also refer to one of the main roads where I live by a name it
> hasn't had in close to 20 years).
This
While at NTT and at Akamai we have managed to publish sane PTR records and make
the forward work as well. You need to automate it by pulling from your router
configuration database and publish to your DNS database. If you are still doing
either by hand then it’s time to make the switch ASAP.
S
On 4/30/19 7:12 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
While at NTT and at Akamai we have managed to publish sane PTR records
and make the forward work as well. You need to automate it by pulling
from your router configuration database and publish to your DNS
database. If you are still doing either by hand t
On 4/29/19 7:21 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:16:06 -0500, Bryan Holloway said:
I still see references to UUNet in some reverse PTRs.
So, uh, yeah.
I wonder what year we'll get to a point where less than half of NANOG's
membership was around when UUNet was. We're proba
Automation isn’t even that hard - just outsource (e.g. 6Connect).
I get why some things stagnate & collect kruft. But it is actually EASIER, and
probably cheaper (including people time), to have a 3rd party “just do it” when
it comes to things like DNS & IPAM.
Then again, if everyone ran everyt
Hi,
I am aware that some PTR records are wrong. Can you please name the
half dozen ISPs / suffixes so I can take a look at those in the data.
In theory the code should score suffixes which have out of date
records poorly. For suffixes that don't score poorly but have errors,
there are other tech
Hi Nanog members,
I am senior PhD student with the Oregon Network Research Group (
https://onrg.gitlab.io) at the University of Oregon, and sending this email
to seek your help for validating the research results for one of our
network measurement projects.
We have conducted a large scale measure
Peering email is broken, looking for an AT&T contact. Please contact me off
list.
The original message was received at Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:11:17 -0400
from m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
(reason: 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown)
On 4/30/19 13:18, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
Peering email is broken, looking for an AT&T contact. Please contact me
off list.
There's other contacts listed in peeringdb
Mehmet Akcin,
You write AT&T ...
I look in PDB ...
Networks (6):
AT&T AP - AS2687 (2687)
AT&T Canada - AS2685 (2685)
AT&T EMEA - AS2686 (2686)
AT&T LA - AS2688 (2688)
AT&T US - 7018 (7018)
AT&T US - AS7132 (7132)
Which one are you mayhaps referring to, when you write AT&T?
7018
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 17:50 Hansen, Christoffer
wrote:
> Mehmet Akcin,
>
> You write AT&T ...
>
> I look in PDB ...
>
> Networks (6):
> AT&T AP - AS2687 (2687)
> AT&T Canada - AS2685 (2685)
> AT&T EMEA - AS2686 (2686)
> AT&T LA - AS2688 (2688)
> AT&T US - 7018 (7018)
> AT&T US
How much did it cost? :-)
On 19-04-30 08 h 38, Bryan Holloway wrote:
On 4/29/19 7:21 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:16:06 -0500, Bryan Holloway said:
I still see references to UUNet in some reverse PTRs.
So, uh, yeah.
I wonder what year we'll get to a point where less
13 matches
Mail list logo
