> In message <20200923071702.ga5...@hydra.ck.polsl.pl>,
> Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> >Let me add some little humour here:
> >
> >$ dig txt gb. +short
> >"This domain is frozen and will be phased out"
> >"For details see the web page on: www.nic.uk"
> >"Domain names for United Kingdom go under .uk
In message <20200923071702.ga5...@hydra.ck.polsl.pl>,
Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
>Let me add some little humour here:
>
>$ dig txt gb. +short
>"This domain is frozen and will be phased out"
>"For details see the web page on: www.nic.uk"
>"Domain names for United Kingdom go under .uk"
>
>It is "ph
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:07:10PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
> >this sounds like an ideal opportunity for you to take this up with the
> >ISO, as national political issues are out of scope for the RIPE DB-WG!
>
> Ummm... How can I say this most succinctly?
Let me add some littl
In message <82fe09b3-087b-fbeb-4367-4ccebeeb3...@foobar.org>,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 20:41:
>> I should also mention however that I find one small bit of ISO-3166 itself
>> objectionable. This calls for the territories known as her majesty's
>> k
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 20:41:
I should also mention however that I find one small bit of ISO-3166 itself
objectionable. This calls for the territories known as her majesty's
kingdom of Great Britian & Northern Ireland to be designated as "GB",
which I personally find t
In message <491424982.3720509.160086...@mail.yahoo.com>,
"ripede...@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:
>Just to be clear the "created:" attribute relates to an 'object' not to a '
>resource'. So in this case the creation date has not been changed. This is
>a new object and the "created:" attribute reflect
Colleagues
Just to be clear the "created:" attribute relates to an 'object' not to a
'resource'. So in this case the creation date has not been changed. This is a
new object and the "created:" attribute reflects the date this object was
created. The main issue with historical data in the RIPE D
In message
,
Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>Just for my understanding, do you need a policy for the NCC to offer
>"whowas[1]" service?
I guess that my answer would be "no".
As a general matter, and barring any complications, such as are present in
the case of 57.224.0.0/11, historical RIPE WHOIS reco
Aftab Siddiqui wrote on 22/09/2020 12:30:
Just for my understanding, do you need a policy for the NCC to offer
"whowas[1]" service?
I wouldn't see why that was necessary tbh. There's already a good deal
of historical information in the ripedb about previous versions of
objects, which means th
Just for my understanding, do you need a policy for the NCC to offer
"whowas[1]" service?
[1] https://www.apnic.net/static/whowas-ui/#
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 19:55, Nick Hilliard via db-wg
wrote:
> Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 03:13:
> > I'm no
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 03:13:
I'm not sure that the created date should be altered however when an
existing block, legacy or otherwise, is simply shrunk, as appears
to have happaned in this case.
the better long-term fix might be to make network block history
availab
In message <5f5f77f8-c211-7c45-e8aa-b873fdbb0...@foobar.org>,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 21/09/2020 09:47:
>> inetnum:57.224.0.0 - 57.255.255.255
>
>Wasn't the whole of 57.0.0.0/8 registered to SITA?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_I
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 21/09/2020 09:47:
inetnum:57.224.0.0 - 57.255.255.255
Wasn't the whole of 57.0.0.0/8 registered to SITA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks
57.0.0.0/8 RIPE NCC1995-05 Formerly SITA.
I admit to being a bit naive and uneducated, so perhaps someone here
will take pity on me and explain this to me.
I was under the impression that the world was running out of IPv4
addresses. But regardless of that, it seems that a old line French
company that has been in business since 1949 was a
14 matches
Mail list logo
