-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
[cc: to hostmaster@arin.net, maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null]
This is an odd thing to do because you don't say what action you would like ARIN to take. What do you think ARIN should do?
Maybe not clear from the message I sent to NANOG, but which should be clear to ARIN: Update the AS4474 contact information. Apparently nLayer is using it, thus they should be listed there. Then again it doesn't help as they are not reachable through the contact address (noc@nlayer.net) provided in the AS4436 object. One does get a XML ticket number back though. But no response whatsoever, except now from a customer of theirs.
ASHandle: AS4474 Comment: The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment: be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment: been unsuccessful.
Clearly ARIN has already done something about AS4474.
Yup, stating that the ASN is in a completely uncontactable state, which is what I mentioned. RegDate: 1995-03-08 Updated: 2003-07-31 Thus from those two dates we can say that it has not been contactable for over almost a year.
So what else do you think they should do?
Contact nLayer and see what they are now doing with this ASN.
Note that you might want to take this type of discussion onto the ARIN Public Policy mailing list which is open to anyone whether they are an ARIN member or not. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html#ppml
Yes, I am aware of this list and also saw your proposal for making sure that objects that are in the ARIN registry also contain valid and contactable information. For people not having seen the petion for the proposal: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/2593.html The above case makes your point clear very well as nLayer seems not to be available to comments on their noc@nlayer.net address _and_ they are using an ASN which is shown to be not contactable at all. I would add to the proposal that resources, thus ASN's/inet[6]num's and others that have been allocated at one point and when trying to verify the contacts for those addresses seem to be unreachable should be giving a month to respond and if not a public message should be sent out that the resource has been revoked tracing the origins of that resource to find organisations that are peering/accepting that resource and contact them to see if they have a contact for that resource. If a company is unable to respond in a month it is in a very very bad shape and should not be seen as a responsible entity on the internet. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFcCzwAA7O0An279t7H4xDPUE/gyOzIgB8Yq 26awAJ40P8OEatMPI/hutAiLGcZSgI6lqA== =TL53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----