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] AS201133
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Malware/ransomware current live distribution IPs
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] AS201133
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco d'Itri
md at Linux.IT
Fri Jul 1 14:12:17 CEST 2016
On Jun 30, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote: > And conversely, why did RIPE, and/or any of its LIRs, deem it appropriate > to grant one of RIPE's limited supply of AS numbers to a self-identified > *Belizian* company, particularly when this was the company's first, > last, and *only* AS number? Because, as you pointed out, they have a network presence in the RIPE region. > Wouldn't a LACNIC-issued AS number have > done just as well? If not, why not? I am not familiar with LACNIC policies. -- ciao, Marco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 648 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160701/7cd86772/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Malware/ransomware current live distribution IPs
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] AS201133
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]