In message <[email protected]>, Vivek Nigam <[email protected]> wrote:
>APNIC implemented the organization object in June 2017. All organizations >that joined APNIC after this date had their organization objects >automatically created and associated with their resources. I'm not 100% sure that this is accurate, but perhaps I am misunderstanding something subtle. While working on my software tool which attempts to map arbitrary inetnum: records, worldwide, to their corresponding organization names, I have come upon a number of inetnum:/netname: things that appear to me to be newer than June 2017, but where the inetnum: records in question fail to contain any org: sub-field. Many/most of these can be seen by simply querying the WHOIS data base for the relevant netnames. Here are some examples of relevant netnames: EHOSTICT KDTIDC RAKUTEN-CIDR-BLK-JP CLOUDMEDIA-VN BETINC QTNET-CIDR-BLK-JP AROGAYA INTERLINK-CIDR-BLK-JP FBDC-CIDR-BLK-JP These are just a few examples. Also and separately, it appears to me that in some (many?) cases, entities that joined APNIC -before- June 2017 have been granted number resource allocations -after- June, 2017, and those inetnum: records thus also, in many cases, fail to contain and org: sub-field. These cases are also problematic, and I think that one good way to encourage older organizations that have not yet entered into a formal contractual relationship with APNIC to do so now would be to stop giving those organizations additional number resources. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
