You are right. You are a professional, I think you will not ignore the allocation date such as you listed
held by: Non-LIRs (end users): Hewlett Packard Apple Computer Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not: Amateur Radio (AMPR) LIRs: XFINITY/Comcast Verizon Akamai XO Communications Amazon Microsoft Google etc. On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:24 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider > the amount of space > held by: > > Non-LIRs (end users): > Hewlett Packard > Apple Computer > > Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not: > Amateur Radio (AMPR) > > LIRs: > XFINITY/Comcast > Verizon > Akamai > XO Communications > Amazon > Microsoft > Google > etc. > > The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the above > organizations. > > Owen > > > On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S <le...@afcast.com> wrote: > > Hi Ronald > Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a shocking > number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block allocated. This > is not in 199x year. > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> > wrote: > >> In message < >> calm9cbn+r9oen9+9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com> >> Meriem Dayday <meriemday...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >This is a direct violation of the CoC. >> >> No, actually, it isn't. >> >> The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of >> it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is effectively >> public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any number of >> public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net, etc.) >> >> If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an >> affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the >> telescope and then just describe what they saw? And if so, then what >> is next? Book burning? >> >> >Disclosing such information and data without the company's consent is a >> >clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the >> >concerned person. >> >> OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different obvious >> logical problems. >> >> First, the Internet is *not* a private network. Fact's about what various >> companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn, >> without needing the consent of the companies inolved. That is the nature >> of the Internet. If you want to run your own closed private intranet, >> then go head. Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last >> detail of your corporate operations utterly secret. But the minute any >> company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it >> *voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange for being >> a part of, and a participant on this great communications experiment we >> call the Internet. >> >> I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud >> Innovation. >> And yet even well before today I already determined for myself that well >> more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4 >> address space was being deployed to other continents. This is not a state >> secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100% public >> sources. Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same >> information. >> >> Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its >> assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific >> RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question, >> and one which I myself do not have an answer to. In any case, the >> courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine. But the >> mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned >> resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the available >> public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets. Any attempt to portray >> them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship. >> >> The second logical problem with the statement above is contained in the >> part that says "... attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences >> on the concerned person." >> >> Exactly so! If the guy who posted the material you are reacting to was >> willing to take the legal risk to post that material, IN SPITE OF the >> possibility that he could, at least in theory, be sued for defamation, >> then why are YOU worried about it? Why should AFRINIC be worried about >> it? Obviously, this (theoretical) possibility of a defemation lawsuit >> is only a problem for the guy who posted the (allegedly) defamatory >> text, and he obviiously was willing to take the risk in order to express >> his opinion, SO WHAT IS THAT TO YOU? >> >> Here again, shouting down in the original poster in this manner appears >> to me to be just another a heavy-handed attempt at pointless censorship. >> >> I hope that we here can all have open and frank discusions of all of the >> issues now of concern to AFRINIC without these kinds of attempts to >> muzzle dissenting viewpoints based on perfectly silly arguments. >> >> >> Regards, >> rfg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > >
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
