Hi Ronald
The query option '--types' or '-T' refers to object types. The list
you gave is the list of all object types. The 'netname' is an
attribute in the INET(6)NUM object types. It is not, itself, an object
type.
It is possible to search on netname using the full text search
https://apps.db.r
Hi Ronald
I don't have answers to all your questions but let me throw a few ideas out.
First of all the "created:" attribute reflects the date the object was
created in the RIPE Database. This may not be the same as 'registered'
date. For legacy space there is no concept of allocations and
assign
In message
,
Leo Vegoda wrote
>Not only is uniqueness {of netnames} not required, the manual advises against
>it:
I expressed myself badly. Let me try again.
Yes, I understand that it is both customary and advisable for a given
organization
to label all of its address block allocations with
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:19 PM Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg
wrote:
[...]
> And as long as we are on the subject, may I safely infer from the
> presence, in the data base, of a dozen different networks named "ABC"
> that no attempt has ever been made to insure uniqueness of netnames
> within th
One of the helpful options provided by the RIPE WHOIS server is the
--types option which provides a list of what specific object types
a given set of query results may be restricted to.
That list is as follows:
inetnum
inet6num
as-block
aut-num
as-set
route
route6
route-set
inet-rtr
filter-set
pe
In message
,
Leo Vegoda wrote:
>On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg
> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> All I meant was that I was "suspicious" that the created: date/time value
>> could
>> be, you know, wrong... which it self-evidently is.
>
>And there lies the value. Within the
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg
wrote:
[...]
> All I meant was that I was "suspicious" that the created: date/time value
> could
> be, you know, wrong... which it self-evidently is.
And there lies the value. Within the constraints of the format, the
RIPE NCC aler
In message ,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 28/05/2021 04:10:
>> Given that 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z is rather well known to be the beginning
>> of UNIX time (i.e. time: 0) I could not help but be a bit suspicious of
>> the value in the created: field of the record show
Roland,
On 27/05/2021 18.43, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
In message ,
Shane Kerr wrote:
route: 103.86.68.0/22
origin: AS131477
mnt-by: HUAJUAN-MJJ-MNT
created:2018-02-24T19:00:10Z
last-modified: 2018-09-04T19:09:05Z
source: RIPE-NONAUTH
I n
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 28/05/2021 04:10:
Given that 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z is rather well known to be the beginning
of UNIX time (i.e. time: 0) I could not help but be a bit suspicious of
the value in the created: field of the record shown above.
It just means that the object pred
Ronald,
There are likely to be others on this list that know more about this
than I do…
Has the UK government been so hard up for cash in recent years that it
has taken to selling off any spare /16 blocks that it happens to have
lying around? If so, who should I talk to about placing a bid f
11 matches
Mail list logo
