Re: [apnic-talk] IRT Update
> I would probably have to ask the JPNIC folks for
> advice on that one. Thanks.
We don't have "IRT object" in JPNIC Whois.
We have an "abuse" field in "inet-num object" for allocations, which is
a mandatory field.
We did have discussions in our Open Policy Meeting whether to created
IRT object but there was no support from the community at the time.
People felt it's better to make sure information is upto date with the
current information rather than creating a new one.
The next Open Policy Meeting in JP is in November, so feel free to raise
any issues there.
Izumi
(2012/09/13 18:27), Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
> ahh! good suggestion indeed.
> I would probably have to ask the JPNIC folks for
> advice on that one. Thanks.
>
> ASNUM registration on peeringdb.com has imporved
> immsensely by using JANOG to spread the word
> so I just thought it might be likewise with
> IRT, but I guess there is a motivation to put a
> record on peeringdb (you get more peers) whereas
> with IRT, I guess we haven't answered the
> 'what's in it for me?' question.
>
> Regards,
> Seiichi
>
>
> (2012/09/13 17:39), Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> Hi Seiichi,
>>
>> register now and get a /22! :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Register now and get /22 without justification :) wow... last /8 will
>> vanish soon :)
>>
>>
>>> Asking local heros to notify their community
>>> would work best in Asia, I assume.
>>> Isn't that what NOGs are for?
>>>
>>>
>> Yup this is what we try to do at SANOG as well and thanks to the APNIC
>> training staff they always promote IRT-object creation but its not helping
>> in anyway. So any special plan for motivating ppl to create IRT-object in
>> upcoming JANOG?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>