[112886] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Akamai wierdness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JC Dill)
Wed Mar 25 02:23:25 2009
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:21:16 -0700
From: JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com>
CC: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <e6e9128b0903242233x77752b90j99cb606c5d8a0b47@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
jamie rishaw wrote:
> Akamai customer support is ccare@.
<snip>
> Anyone claiming noc@ : not the place for issues to go to, and Akamai will
> tell you that.[4]
>
No one said that noc@ was "not the place" - someone (who works at
Akamai) said that the RFC specified noc@ works, and it does. Someone
else said it didn't work, and that person was incorrect (as my testing
proves) - perhaps the NOC has better things to do than engage with a
nym/troll when it "tests" if the noc@ address works or not.
To summarize:
The RFC-specified noc@ address exists and works. Customers also
have/know about ccare@ which also works. Non-customers (surprise - not
everyone is an Akamai customer, and non-customers do have valid reasons
to contact a NOC now and then) who don't know about the super sekret[1]
ccare@ can use noc@.
Is there some point you wanted to make that contradicts all of this?
jc
[1] TIN(Sekret)C
