[2851] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Mon May 6 21:47:50 1996
To: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 May 1996 10:54:02 PDT."
<9605031754.AA14659@wisdom.home.vix.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 21:44:16 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
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
