North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
- From: Jeroen Massar
- Date: Tue Mar 16 08:39:09 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >[cc: to email@example.com, maybe now it will get their
> >attention instead of going into /dev/null]
> This is an odd thing to do because you don't say
> what action you would like ARIN to take.
> What do you think ARIN should do?
Maybe not clear from the message I sent to NANOG,
but which should be clear to ARIN:
Update the AS4474 contact information.
Apparently nLayer is using it, thus they should be
listed there. Then again it doesn't help as they
are not reachable through the contact address
(firstname.lastname@example.org) provided in the AS4436 object.
One does get a XML ticket number back though.
But no response whatsoever, except now from a
customer of theirs.
> >ASHandle: AS4474
> >Comment: The information for this ASN has been reported to
> >Comment: be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated
> data, but
> >Comment: been unsuccessful.
> Clearly ARIN has already done something about AS4474.
Yup, stating that the ASN is in a completely uncontactable
state, which is what I mentioned.
Thus from those two dates we can say that it has not
been contactable for over almost a year.
> So what else do you think they should do?
Contact nLayer and see what they are now doing with this ASN.
> Note that you might want to take this type of
> discussion onto the ARIN Public Policy
> mailing list which is open to anyone whether
> they are an ARIN member or not.
Yes, I am aware of this list and also saw your proposal
for making sure that objects that are in the ARIN registry
also contain valid and contactable information.
For people not having seen the petion for the proposal:
The above case makes your point clear very well as nLayer
seems not to be available to comments on their email@example.com
address _and_ they are using an ASN which is shown to be
not contactable at all.
I would add to the proposal that resources, thus ASN's/inetnum's
and others that have been allocated at one point and when
trying to verify the contacts for those addresses seem
to be unreachable should be giving a month to respond and
if not a public message should be sent out that the resource
has been revoked tracing the origins of that resource to
find organisations that are peering/accepting that resource
and contact them to see if they have a contact for that resource.
If a company is unable to respond in a month it is in a
very very bad shape and should not be seen as a responsible
entity on the internet.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----