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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tobias Knecht
tk at abusix.com
Sun Apr 22 14:51:59 CEST 2012
Hello, as promised I asked RIPE NCC staff to provide some stats on IRTs. Thanks for answering that fast. I got the following stats. At the moment there 276 IRT Objects in the DB. The address space covered by these IRT Objects in not trivial to calculate so I do not have numbers on that. But we have stats that are about 4 years old, which tell us that there have been 121 IRT Objects in the DB. These 121 IRT Objects covered 1,7% of the address space that time. That means we have an increase of IRT Objects of approximately 40 per year over the last 4 years. If the coverage factor is still the same we should end up at approximately 3,8 or let's say 4 or even 5% of the address space. Knowing these numbers makes it in my opinion even more clear, that the IRT Object is not a widely used object and there is a lot of space for improvement. How ever this improvement looks like. That's why I would like to wait for an implementation of the abuse-c if we find consensus on that and look at the numbers of the IRT Objects again and start making decisions on what should happen with it. From my perspective at the moment there is everything possible. Discontinuing, changing it or letting it as it is. But that will be a community discussion and decision at that time. Thanks, Tobias On 19.04.12 17:45, James Davis wrote: > On 19/04/2012 16:37, Adrian wrote: > >> Are the folks using IRT Objects at a larger scale (e.G. TI) >> included in this discussion? > > I've never seen an IRT object that wasn't created through the TI > community. I'll send TI an e-mail to make them aware of this thread. > > James > > > Janet is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited > by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 > and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, > Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20120422/218d72e3/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]