On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 11:56:58AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
In a case where the community is polarised to this extent it would be better to
break with procedure and call a vote for once. With member organizations
represented by their abuse team heads, rather than IP / routing
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:42:09PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
RIPE NCC need not decide whether a behaviour is legal or not in order to
prohibit use of resources that it allocates for such behaviour.
Wearing a T-shirt, shorts and flip flops is perfectly legal and yet you can be
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:38:26PM -, Srgio Rocha wrote:
It's amazing that nobody cant propose anything without receiving a shower of
all sorts of arguments against
It's called "democracy". As Chuchill said, it's an awful system
but better than any other that have been tried.
rgds,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 03:36:46PM +, Marcolla, Sara Veronica wrote:
Alex,
You say ???they just feel this issue should be address via leveraging RIPE
resouces???, but I do not see so far any concrete proposal in the sense of
addressing issues, only shooting down proposals (for good or bad
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 06:30:50PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Even if I accept that one of these explanation is accurate and correct,
I am still left with one question: Who is "they" in this context?
If it's a leaked internal private ASN, the next ASN upstream in
the path should be the
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 05:43:55PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_asinfo
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_prefixes
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_prefixes6
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_peers
https://bgp.he.net/AS65000#_peers6
The only other thing I feel compelled to say,
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 01:48:07PM +0100, Carlos Friaas wrote:
Imho, that will also depend on this regulator's f-u-n-d-i-n-g model.
Or are we supposed to see the uprising of a "FIR" (EU Federal Internet
Registry), building on the NIR concept...? :-)
That's exactly what I think *will* happen.
ne* agrees
with that. I apologise if I didn't make this clear enough. I will
endeavour to use even shorter words next time.
rgds,
SL
???On 05/04/19, 5:44 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Sascha Luck [ml]"
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 06:41:52PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 08:23:12AM +0100, Carlos Friaas wrote:
So you seem to prefer regulation over self-regulation?
Not per se, just that I'd prefer governmental regulation over the
kind of regulation 2019-03 envisions.
And who would be doing that regulation?
- some EC org (service region
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 06:41:52PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
RIPE can't tell anyone either what to announce (over BGP) much less what
the individual IP addresses that people do announce are used for, which
could include, and which often *does* include, the distribution of malware
and
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:52:32PM +0100, CSIRT.UMINHO Marco Teixeira wrote:
While I speak for myself, I might incur the risk of representing a lot of the so-called
"Astroturfers?!". While some accuse (please don't take it personally, it's just
clarification) the newcomers of being voiceless,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Karl-Josef Ziegler wrote:
Yes, this is also my opinion. The community should do something against this
abusive behavior.
If it isn't done by the community there might be some regulation coming from
outside, i.e.
political entities. And I doubt that
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:47:27PM +0100, Carlos Friaas wrote:
Too easy (you might have missed this one...):
Dear group members from Portugal stated your support for 2019-03,
Can you please provide some more arguments than your humble "+1"
statement? This is a working group, not a voting.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of
discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't
also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:18:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as those opposing
should explain why and provide inputs. Those agreeing can just say nothing or say "I
agree".
I don't actually agree
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
The same way it happens with lack of payment,
explicitly part of the contract (SSA).
or delivering false/forged information to the NCC.
explicitly part of the contract.
You are trying to change the contract.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 02:32:23PM +, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
And while a member can feel it shouldn't be part of the same
org/company/association than (bad?) actors, it doesn't feel right that
it is that said member that should quit his/her membership.
What do feelings
All,
can I ask every participant in this discussion to PLEASE, PLEASE
quote properly. It's becoming absolutely impossible to ascertain
who wrote what and who made a statement and who answered it.
To brass tacks:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:44:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:02:15PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
Exactly, the vendors for barley, hops, etc., can also decide if they want to
sell them or not.
Different case, in this analogy, the NCC is the ONLY vendor for
the necessary goods.
If I don't want to
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:52:36PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
If the reason for the withdrawal is doing actions that are used to make or
facilitate illegal activities (again spam, DDoS, child pornography, etc.), I
doubt it will be the reason for courts or regulators
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:29:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
I learnt that there is an association for craft beer producers and one of the
rules was that if you have a sharing from an industrial beer producer, you are
automatically expelled from the association.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 05:13:20PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to
grant the RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements about
alleged abuse of network resources with the implicit intention that
unless the party involved ends
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:43:14PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Yet Erik Bais is arguing that RIPE policy decisions should be driven by
a desire to accomodate the needs of exactly such Bad Actors. That is
For the second time in this discussion alone, you have resorted
to
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:21:43PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
I don't think I've said that if it is really a victim. I know my English is
bad, but not so terrible!
not you, that was Carlos and he has since clarified what he
meant.
A direct peer I mean here is the
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:09:24AM +, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
With this self-regulatory framework in place hijackers (and everyone)
will have in writing that their actions are not tolerated by the
community, and if it comes to that, their 'business model' will be
somewhat
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:12:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
3) We may need to refine the text, but the suspected hijacker, in case of sponsored
resources, is the suspected hijacker, not the sponsoring LIR (which may not even have
relation to it). However, some
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:46:08PM -0700, Jacob Slater wrote:
Route objects are not always required. While route objects are generally
preferred and should be used, letters of authorization are still in use
today. You certainly wouldn't see them in a public database (though you
might see
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 01:35:54PM -0400, Jacob Slater wrote:
While I am in general support of the proposal???s ideas, I have several
concerns with regards to the specific implementation.
Sadly, we don't know about the implementation details yet and
that is another problem with this proposal.
Hi Marco,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:30:21PM +, CSIRT.UMINHO Marco Teixeira wrote:
While i understand this concern, i must say that communities that do not
self-regulate, tend to be regulated from above, and that is (usually) not
desirable.
I think no one is sugesting that RIPE be a
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 08:33:22AM +, Carlos Friaas wrote:
Not for the RIPE NCC. The NCC aims to restore compliance with the
SSA and not to punish the member unless as a last resort.
If the member keeps breaking compliance
Where do you exactly see in 2019-03 the suggestion that
it is not in your power to determine consensus on
this list so kindly leave this determination to the chairs.
And Do Not EVER propose to silence me again.
[profanity redacted]
SL
???On 21/03/19, 8:27 AM, "Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 07:06:40AM +0530, Suresh Ramas
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 07:06:40AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The discussion does seem to be going in circles. A series of objections from
Sascha and then various people countering it ??? none of whom appear to be
lawyers of any stripe, discussing the legality (or not) of this
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:09:42PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I'm not persuaded that it is. Here on this side of the pond we do not,
in general, suffer fools gladly -or- coddle troublemakers, especially
when it comes to private commercial contractual arrangements, which
is, after all,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:04:53PM +, Carlos Friaas wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it does. "criminal"
has a very precise legal meaning. If you think that advertisement
of numbers is a criminal act, please provide jurisdiction, act
and article under which it is.
Three
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:04:53PM +, Carlos Friaas wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it does. "criminal"
has a very precise legal meaning. If you think that advertisement
of numbers is a criminal act, please provide jurisdiction, act
and article under which it is.
Three
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:26:28PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
countinue to make, the exact same mistake that Mr. Luck has made here,
i.e. failing to note the clear distinction between things that are
"political" and things that are abjectly and abundantly criminal,
I don't think that
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 01:00:24PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In all of the apartments I've ever rented in my life, if you violated
the rules then you would be out on your ear in three days.
This is a horrible analogy. If there was only one provider of
apartments in your region and
If you are a victim (someone has abused your network), then just prove
it and the policy won't apply and the hivemind will even assist you in
cleaning your router.
LOL, two of the oldest lies in history neatly rolled into one
statement:
"If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to
Hi Jordi,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 03:45:24PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
Service Agreement. This I consider harmful to the standing of
the RIPE NCC as an impartial, non-political resource registry.
This has been one of our main concerns while developing the
All,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy
Violation", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to define that BGP hijacking is not accepted as
normal practice within the RIPE
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:43:03AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
...
Sucks when all the free stuff you've been using to make money
gets taken away, doesn't it?
LOL,
Sascha Luck
In message <9d061c1e-2d17-48b1-fc72-3c08026bb...@key-systems.net>,
Volker Greimann wrote:
Even in those
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:50:09PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote:
Would you be able to point to the section of the GDPR which states this?
Admission: I have yet to make it to the end of the 88 pages of the act without
falling asleep.
It derives (also the tenor of NOYB's filing, aiui) from
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:00:22PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote:
Law enforcement doesn't provide anti-virus tools. Law enforcement doesn't offer secure
transport services for cash and gold. Law enforcement doesn???t provide locks for front doors.
Private companies provide those services. Your
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:00:22PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote:
Publishing that data was perfectly legal pre-GDPR. It _may_ be legal post GDPR.
Until this is tested in court, definitives are just so much posturing. And the
argument is likely to be more nuanced anyway. If I want to register a
wish to propose something that involves other media, please
do. But at present, this is the medium in use.
Thanks,
Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
>> -Original Message-
>> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> On Behalf Of
>> Sascha Luck [ml]
>> S
remains so far entirely unaddressed - why
does a proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of
email (in 2018!) for contact information?
rgds,
Sascha Luck
-Original Message-
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> On Behalf Of
Sascha Luck [ml]
Sent: Thurs
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:20:41PM +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
it. (However, since I'm not sure the implementation process
cannot just change without my consent, I still oppose it on this
point, too)
Actually, a question for the chairs on the PDP: Is the
implentation plan a part
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:45:43PM +0200, ox wrote:
Have I made myself sufficiently clear?
Not really.
Right. I will then re-iterate all of my arguments including the
ones against v1.
1) The proposal states:
"Improving the trust and safety of the IP address space is a
priority for the RIPE
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:05PM +0200, ox wrote:
so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process -
if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute an
improvement, please do so Sascha?
OK, so for the avoidance of doubt among the trolls and the rules
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:22:28PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to
support the community???s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact
analysis at:
All,
I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as
a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects
every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the
NCC provides services, the services-wg would be an even better
venue. For another, given the
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:13:54PM +0200, Malte von dem Hagen wrote:
Nobody mandatorily needs IP space. Point is, if you ???need??? own IP space,
that is always out of free will, curiosity, business concept or something
similar, but never by force. You just weaken yourself by enclosing a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:31:07PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
If you dislike the engagement that RIPE NCC has with external organisations
(see
https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/engagement-external-organisations)
then the RIPE NCC General Meeting and/or exec-bo...@ripe.net seem the
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:29:04PM +0200, Malte von dem Hagen wrote:
nobody is a mandatory member of RIPE.
I did contemplate putting text in my email to forestall this
idiotic argument because I knew someone would not be above
bringing it.
Everyone in the RIPE NCC service region who needs
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:19:50PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
This is the first I've even heard of this. Surely the membership
should at least be asked whether they want an organisation they
are *mandatory* members of to become a close ally of a political
LEA like Europol.
Oh, and can we
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:28PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/richard_leaning/bringing-law-enforcement-into-the-ripe-community
It certainly is "interesting". For instance:
"we recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Europol to
foster even better
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:22:55PM +, HRH Prince Sven Olaf
von CyberBunker wrote:
cuz we thought it should be more like 'ddos ddos ddos' 'hijacked
prefix' 'ddos' 'mass hack' 'ddos' 'someone switched off the
electricity' 'someone cut some fibers'...'spamhaus illegally
scraped the ripe db for
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:45:54PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
We are not here to talk about other instances. This is about one
instance. There does need to be further conversation about the
AA-WG community and the list.
Agree.
There is quite a lot of material that did not make it to the
list
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:19:15PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
There is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and "violating
the freedom of others".
An argument used exclusively by wannabe censors over the
centuries. I consider it discredited.
Anyone should be free to state their opinions.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:05:19PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
This morning Tobias and I asked the NCC to take the very unusual
step, effectively immediately, of removing the person behind
sv...@xs4all.nl from the Anti-Abuse WG mailing list. This was
not done lightly, rather it was done to
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 05:43:09PM +0100, peter h wrote:
The role for an ISP in fighting abuse is to detect and prevent
it's customer from sending malware & spam out of it's network.
Not filter incoming stuff, that would be censoring.
And requiring to submit publications to a third party for
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:34:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:08:44 +0200, ox wrote:
then again, I may be very wrong - so help me out :)
The universal rule of ladies and gentlemen is to avoid giving
offense. So one does not discuss or use references
(unless in a
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 01:16:47PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
More to the point however, although RIPE NCC may indeed wish, as
a matter of policy, to refrain from disclosing "non-public
information", any such policy is obviously, demonstratably, and
utterly irrelevant to the request I
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 07:42:05PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Perhaps you subscribe to Mr Goebbels' axiom that, if you repeat a
lie often enough, it becomes the truth?
Can I get an official ruling on this?
Does the above qualify as a "Godwin"? (And do I get a coupon for that? :-)
No,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
...are *assigned* to the end user by a LIR from larger space *allocated*
to the LIR by the RIR (RIPE NCC in this case)
I do (and did) see that the /26 that has irked me most recently is
indeed, as you say, just a smallish
In *policy* matters, like "under which rules does the RIPE NCC
hand out IP addresses", the RIPE *community* decides, by
following the policy development process the community has given
itself. The NCC acts as the secretariat that manages the
resources according to these policies.
Well, even a
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:27:04PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I'm still trying to understand. RIPE is *not* RIPE NCC and vise versa,
correct? I mean they are two different things, legally speaking, yes?
A person or legal entity could be a member of "RIPE" and yet not be a
member of
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:08:47AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I may have missed the logic behind this. Any RIPE WG can make
policy, why should AA-WG be any different?
aawg is not different, the problem is precisely that any WG can
make policy. There should be ONE list on which policy is
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 10:54:45AM +, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Considering the IPv4 space is such a valuable resource now
I???d happily argue that if you do a bad job of managing it
then maybe you shouldn???t have it
You should not forget to add the "and instead I should have it"
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:38:52PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
But the RIPE NCC isn't an official party in that contract. The
contract is between end user and LIR.
Well... Considering that such a contract must be submitted to,
and approved by, the RIPE NCC (or it will not result in the
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:57:18AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
The internet resource management mechanism as managed by RIRs and
LIRS is "of a criminal nature", do I understand you correctly?
The mechanism is the internet
Uhuh. I guess it's just as well that barely any operators seem to read
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 07:23:39PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
That is what floating this in the db wg will establish - whether
it is actually a member revolt or one individual???s opinion
Consensus is a wonderful thing when it is achieved
You're touching on a very sore point for me.
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:31:31PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <20151104143230.gk47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
I really would like to be there with a video camera the next time
you find yourself having to go through airport security.
YouTube stardom awaits us.
Yeah, but not
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Laugh now... while you can.
Threats again, is it? I call on the chairs to point out to this
individual that n.a.n.a.e tactics are not welcome on this list.
I also end my participation in this discussion here. Given that
you
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:50:37PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
It has been well more than just one or two cases, and I suspect
that you know that. Only one or two GLARING cases per month
perhaps, but over time it has added up.
so what? the NCC has 14,000 members (or thereabouts) and
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 07:40:58PM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
STEP 2
For those ROUTE objects from STEP 1 where the out of region
resource does exist, hold the object creation as pending. The
mechanism for doing this already exists in the RIPE Database
software as it is used for
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:41:32PM +0100, denis wrote:
When it comes to getting an ASN the AUT-NUM does require reference to
a PERSON/ROLE object. But you can pick any PERSON or ROLE object in
the database and reference them. Technically there is no cross
checking. The 'owner' of those objects
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 01:10:01PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I'm just putting myself in their shoes. If I were them, and I was
asked my opinion about something that, in the short run at least.
would, increase my workload, I would scream, holler, tear my
hair out, pound my fist on the
I don't think it can be done without turning the NCC into
something like the NSA and even then I doubt it would be 100%
effective.
Many governments throughout history have tried to have all the
data they can on their citizens...
I am not persuaded that this is at all a valid or fair comparison.
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:02:42PM +0100, denis wrote:
It has served very well over the years but it does have limitations
now. This is a database. You put stuff in and get stuff out. When you
need a full day course to learn the basics of putting stuff in, it
shouts there is a problem.
I
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:44:15PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
That having been said it might still be either necessary or
advisable to put a CAPTCHA in front of the RIPE account creation
process, e.g. if there isn't one there already, just to stop
some mindless automaton from trying to
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:57:21PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Just curious... How would automated verification of snail-mail
addresses and/or positive automated verification of contact phone
numbers implicate any contractual issues?
This particular mechanism may or may not. That's for
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:49:34PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Police have guns. They have handcuffs. They can arrest people.
As long as RIPE's only power is to kick certain bogus and/or poorly
maintained records out of the data base, there seems little danger
that RIPE will
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:05:28AM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
the sponsoring LIR should be restricted to an LIR in the same
geographical/political/language area as the end user resource
holder. Otherwise it could render the whole notion of an LIR
validating their sponsored user's data
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:30:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
From an engineering standpoint you absolutely must have
at least one redundant channel, with an acknowledgement
mechanism (e.g. registered mail). But fax is also possible for this
because the receipt is stamped with date/time of
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:17:10PM +0100, denis wrote:
That may well be right, but if the sponsor cannot understand the
language of the resource holder the validation may not be very
effective.
The price you pay for a globalised society. I can see your point
but this isn't something you can
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:06:56AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
It needn't be done except as an additional verification step for
new asns and suspect ones
Sigh. Having an ASN assigned involves exchange of signed
contracts between sponsoring LIR and end-user. These, as well as
company
87 matches
Mail list logo
