Re: I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )
I've added ROUTING to do what TROUBLE is often used to do.
I question whether this is a good idea -- some providers have a "routing" mailing list that isn't really intended for public dissemination and use. For instance, routing@uunet.uu.net and routing@es.net both bypass their respective NOCs and go straight to engineering types -- perhaps we need to pick a new name for those sorts of lists, but I really don't see what having a "routing" buys us over "noc".
This is the kind of collision that makes this "standard" expensive to implement. Folks elsewhere use ROUTING as a way to reach the folks who want to hear about externally visible routing problems; NETCOM for example advertises this address in its RADB elements. I think that folks like UUNET and ESNET will have to pick new addresses if they don't want their engineers getting spammed. Sorry about that.
In message <9605031754.AA14659@wisdom.home.vix.com>, Paul A Vixie writes:
I've added ROUTING to do what TROUBLE is often used to do.
I question whether this is a good idea -- some providers have a "routing" mailing list that isn't really intended for public dissemination and use. For instance, routing@uunet.uu.net and routing@es.net both bypass their respective NOCs and go straight to engineering types -- perhaps we need to pick a new name for those sorts of lists, but I really don't see what having a "routing" buys us over "noc".
This is the kind of collision that makes this "standard" expensive to implement. Folks elsewhere use ROUTING as a way to reach the folks who want to hear about externally visible routing problems; NETCOM for example advertises this address in its RADB elements. I think that folks like UUNET and ESNET will have to pick new addresses if they don't want their engineers getting spammed. Sorry about that.
ANS uses routing the same way uunet and esnet do. I think MCI does the same. Netcom is in the minority. Curtis
participants (2)
-
Curtis Villamizar -
Paul A Vixie