On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:26:51AM -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Is DDoS-Guard without blame? Probably not, but them hosting some occasional
> criminals is NOT UNLIKE EVERY OTHER GLOBAL NETWORK!
You might wish to scroll back up to the message I sent here on January 21
with the Subject "DDOS-Guard" a
On 1/25/2021 11:34 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
They are not losing IPs because of hosting questionable content.
Correct - but from reading the Brian Krebs article on this, that was the
justification that Ron Guilmette used for going after Parler and DDoS-Guard.
--
Rob McEwen
https://www.invalueme
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:28 PM Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> A take on the 1979 movie "When A Stranger Calls" - "have you checked the
> children?" becomes "have you checked the IP registration?"
>
> [image: Have you checked the IP registration?]
>
>
> The vast majority of the time, Ron Guilmette does "t
/(sent again since the last one had the inline graphic stripped out - so
this one links to the graphic on a website)/
A take on the 1979 movie "When A Stranger Calls" - "have you checked the
children?" becomes "have you checked the IP registration?"
Have you checked the IP registration?
http
A take on the 1979 movie "When A Stranger Calls" - "have you checked the
children?" becomes "have you checked the IP registration?"
Have you checked the IP registration?
The vast majority of the time, Ron Guilmette does "the Lord's work" -
but THIS time - it looks to me like he put his poli
Hi Matthew,
I’m not sure I’ve succeded to explain it in previous emails.
The requirement for the LACNIC policies about majority of usage *in the region*
of the resources provided has been there for many years. I’m almost sure than
since day 1, but will need to dig into older versions of the
On 1/24/21 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Hi Jordi,
I've adjusted the subject line to reflect the real thrust of this
discussion.
[edits Message Filters to include string "Past policies versus present
and future uses" in Subject]
[selects folder "NANOG" in
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:22 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
[...]
> So, you end up with 2-3 RIRs allocations, not 5. And the real situation is
> that 3 out of 5 RIRs communities, decided to be more relaxed on that
> requirement, so you don’t need actually more than 1 o
8 matches
Mail list logo
