This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 62.222.0.0/15
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 62.222.0.0/15
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 62.222.0.0/15
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Oct 9 09:14:23 CEST 2019
In message <TY2PR0101MB33421E6796B2013776568E52C5950 at TY2PR0101MB3342.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>, David Guo <david at xtom.com> wrote: >Why don't you do some search? I did. I do. I am. I have! Please excuse me for having foolishly tried to obtain actual authoritative information from the actual RIPE WHOIS server, rather than from a Wayback Machine (archive.org) copy of something that appeared on the bgpview.io web site. Regardless of what that other non-authoritative source of information may say, may I ask you to please tell me what *you* see when *you* perform the following two commands? whois -h whois.ripe.net -- "--list-versions 62.222.0.0/15" whois -h whois.ripe.net -- "--show-version 1 62.222.0.0/15" Maybe I need new glasses, but I'm not seeing the year 2002 mentioned in the outputs of these two commands. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. Do I need to try using negative numbers as arguments to the --show-version option? Does that option accept imaginary numbers as arguments? Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 62.222.0.0/15
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 62.222.0.0/15
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]