Hi, I think the intersection of networks who should be listed on a NOC list and networks but who don’t (and are unlikely to ever) peer is around 3, and of those networks I suspect that all of them already have relationships with their customers for issues. If you want your info to be available, perhaps post it on your website.
Additionally, I don’t believe you need to peer to be in PeeringDB. > On 27/05/2017, at 5:44 PM, Peter Ensor <peter.en...@ultrafast.co.nz> wrote: > > The advantage of this list http://www.nznog.org/noc-list > <http://www.nznog.org/noc-list> is that companies like Ultrafast Fibre can be > listed whereas UFF won't be in the peering dB because we don't peer. > > There will be other LFCs and perhaps other networks that people may wish to > contact that won't be in the peering db. > > Hence my vote is for the noc-list. > > Cheers, > Peter Ensor | Chief Architect > Ultrafast Fibre > T +64 (7) 8503880 M +64 (21) 02502772 > E peter.en...@ultrafast.co.nz <mailto:peter.en...@ultrafast.co.nz> > W ultrafastfibre.co.nz <http://ultrafastfibre.co.nz/> > > Attention: This e-mail message is intended for the intended recipient only > and it may contain Ultrafast Fibre Limited confidential or legally privileged > information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost if > this email has been delivered to the wrong recipient. If you have received > this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify > Ultrafast Fibre Limited. You must not disclose, copy or relay any part of > this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any views > expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not > Ultrafast Fibre Limited. This email has been checked for viruses. However, > Ultrafast Fibre Limited makes no warranty that this email or any attachments > are free from viruses or other conditions which may damage or interfere with > recipient data, hardware or software. The recipient relies on its own > procedures and assumes all risk of use and of opening any attachments. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nznog-boun...@list.waikato.ac.nz > [mailto:nznog-boun...@list.waikato.ac.nz > <mailto:nznog-boun...@list.waikato.ac.nz>] On Behalf Of Michael Fincham > Sent: Friday, 26 May 2017 5:21 p.m. > To: nznog > Subject: Re: [nznog] Reminder to update noc contact list/details > > On Fri, 26 May 2017 13:31:10 +1200, Jonathan Brewer <jon.bre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > An NZ-specific NOC list is not all that useful anymore. > > For contrast, I quite like having a local list so we're not dependent on > PeeringDB (which is not to say I think people shouldn't update PeeringDB, > it's still useful). The Internet is all about decentralisation after all. > > For some reason it doesn't look like you can query PeeringDB for networks in > in a particular country (only Exchanges and Facilities), which I suspect > makes automating a list of NZ operators oddly complicated to achieve. > > -- > Michael > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz > https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
