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/[email protected]/
[db-wg] ORG vetting redux
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] ORG vetting redux
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] ORG vetting redux
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Aug 1 14:06:58 CEST 2019
Hi Ronald I am sure the more searching you do you may find more cases like this. But you are still making the same point. We hear you. Can you suggest any improvements to the process that will address any of the cases you have already highlighted? cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG (I apologise for not addressing the reply directly to you as it seems you blacklist yahoo mail.) On Thursday, 1 August 2019, 06:58:50 CEST, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: I have a trivial little Perl program called "dupcount" that does exactly what its name implies. I ran it on a fresh copy of the database, as part of a command pipeline as follows: % gzcat ripe.db.gz | grep '^org-type:' | dupcount Results were as follows: 99651 org-type: OTHER 24055 org-type: LIR 1131 org-type: Other 1034 org-type: other 3 org-type: OTher 1 org-type: RIR 1 org-type: IANA 1 org-type: WHITEPAGES 1 org-type: OTHEr I gather from this that case should generally be ignored when parsing this field value. Would it also be appropriate to assume that LEGACY number resources have generally been associated with ORG records of type OTHER? Have any or all of those ORGs ever been vetted in any way? And what about number resources that are presently associated with no ORG whatsoever, for example, the following ones? I am having a bit of trouble understanding how a <<void>> organization gets (or got) vetted by NCC. (I should perhaps clarify that of the following 120 ASNs, fully 108 of them are listed as status: LEGACY, however that leaves another 12 wih status: ASSIGNED, and for those, and also the LEGACY ones, the vetting, if any, that has been applied seems to me to be a at least a bit ambiguous.) AS248 AS249 AS250 AS528 AS529 AS544 AS590 AS593 AS697 AS709 AS710 AS712 AS761 AS764 AS777 AS1110 AS1112 AS1114 AS1115 AS1116 AS1118 AS1119 AS1121 AS1122 AS1123 AS1124 AS1126 AS1135 AS1137 AS1203 AS1234 AS1241 AS1253 AS1257 AS1270 AS1271 AS1272 AS1273 AS1274 AS1279 AS1290 AS1304 AS1318 AS1342 AS1352 AS1353 AS1653 AS1654 AS1663 AS1732 AS1739 AS1748 AS1752 AS1774 AS1780 AS1833 AS1835 AS1837 AS1889 AS1893 AS1903 AS1921 AS1922 AS1923 AS1960 AS1961 AS1962 AS1967 AS2004 AS2012 AS2016 AS2017 AS2026 AS2028 AS2029 AS2036 AS2045 AS2049 AS2147 AS2148 AS2481 AS2487 AS2494 AS2529 AS2530 AS2578 AS2609 AS2643 AS2921 AS3151 AS3843 AS3917 AS3918 AS4148 AS4457 AS4458 AS4524 AS4588 AS4589 AS4974 AS6067 AS6168 AS6412 AS8093 AS8346 AS8452 AS11341 AS11660 AS15808 AS18732 AS19376 AS20598 AS21042 AS21174 AS21491 AS22627 AS24691 AS25429 AS29032 AS29039 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20190801/ccf39618/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] ORG vetting redux
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] ORG vetting redux
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]