Hello,
In message <4CA477D3.50803@hovland.cx>, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= <jorgen@hovland.cx> wrote:
I am not going to click on 500 emails and type "yes I concur" every X months.
I'm just an ignorant hick from the other side of the pond. Please take pity on me and enlighten me.
You are the Responsible Party for 500 separate and different IP allocations?
Really??
Simple whois question about Polish Telecom's inetnum objects without person/role references:
$ whois -T inetnum -r -i mnt-by TPNET |grep ^inetnum: |wc -l 201157
How about keeping the proposal as it is and just change from updating _all_ objects to just update the direct from RIPE allocated inet(6)num autnums. That way there should be at least one accurate contact for every ip-address in the RIPE region. If subdelegations are wrong, there will be still a request for correcting the data and the inet(6)num, aut-num will still appear on the lists, but the pressure is smaller and it would help. For example if the contact of a subdelegated range is wrong the abuse reports could be send to the delegation above, and above and so on. How does that sound? Thanks, Tobias