Re: Acceptance of RPKI unknown in ROV

> On 20-Oct-2023, at 00:35, nanog@nanog.org wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:56, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:46, Owen DeLong via NANOG >> > wrote: A question for network operators out there that implement ROV…

Re: ru tld down?

> On 09-Feb-2024, at 02:03, ma...@isc.org wrote: > >  > >> On 9 Feb 2024, at 03:10, darkde...@darkdevil.dk wrote: >> >>> Den 31-01-2024 kl. 20:47 skrev Bjørn Mork: >>> Why do they put their DNS servers in an unsigned zone? >> >> To try to make a more in-depth example: >> >> At the moment,

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

+1 to the Christopher comment > On 11-Jan-2024, at 16:24, ch...@thesysadmin.au wrote: > > There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share Dave's > views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space and 2 x /8s > delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be

Re: ipv6 address management - documentation

I will second this. Netbox is very rich and we can do and manage multiple other things also in netbox. Like I am managing my complete server infra details and my service connectivity details in netbox. Kudos to the developer and the netbox community. Regards, Gaurav Kansal > On 16-Nov-2023,

Re: Out of ideas - Comcast issue BGP peering with Tata

Hi friend, Any idea how many segments are in routing table which are still not part of RIR holder ship ? Regards, Gaurav Kansal > On 22-Nov-2023, at 07:40, nanog@nanog.org wrote: > >> >>> Special note, deprecation of non-authoritative registries >>> >>> Please note that 'route' and

Re: 2600:: No longer pings

2409:: is replying the ICMPv6 request, in case anyone interested > On 6 Apr 2024, at 15:31, nanog@nanog.org wrote: > > It appears that 2600:: no longer responds to ICMP. > > $ mtr -rwc 1 2600:: > Start: 2024-04-06T10:53:41+0100 > HOST: metropolis Loss% >