Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Chris Owen <owenc@hubris.net> wrote:
On Apr 7, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Fergie wrote:
Please read what I wrote:
"I would think that it's actually very easy to do when sub-allocations are SWIP'ed."
I cannot, and will not, presuppose that in cases when they are not SWIP'ed that some kind of magic happens. :-)
And how do you know the difference? The Cox IP address is SWIPed. Its even sub-allocated. The allocation is just a /19.
Again, a simple recursive WHOIS will show you sub-allocations if they are properly SWIP'ed. Not a big deal, really. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.0 (Build 214) wj8DBQFGGFiiq1pz9mNUZTMRArfSAJ9X5CMo0M+Tg0Tf1vN2UWytF3oB8gCg/TEH fP3GwH7aW3J7DeNpH3m/aeY= =VQ9W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:51 AM, Fergie wrote:
Again, a simple recursive WHOIS will show you sub-allocations if they are properly SWIP'ed.
Define "properly". The Cox addresses in my example are SWIPed. Are they "properly" SWIPed? How could you tell from whois? Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~ A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGGFnSElUlCLUT2d0RAgfPAJsFe0V9tA67MDWwD3kcrNoVgNZF6wCdHdXT 5R0SMgRJdH176EvlkhIqNZE= =ZYal -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Chris Owen
-
Fergie