whois kludge.. (fwd)

Mon Nov 29 16:15:41 UTC 1993

Bill's question, "Are each of the regionals who get a CIDR block
encouraged to either report back assignments..." is one that is
raised every so often.  Yes, regionals who get CIDR blocks
are encouraged/expected to report reassignments of the block
to the InterNic.  This is one of the fundamental tenants of the
distributed allocation procedure.

Is there some confusion about registering reassignments of allocations
with the InterNic?
        --Elise

Forwarded message:
> From tony at ripe.net Mon Nov 29 08:20:58 1993
> To: bmanning at is.rice.edu (William Manning)
> Cc: qed at brazos.is.rice.edu
> Subject: Re: whois kludge.. 
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 13:54:37 +0100
> 
> 
>  bmanning at is.rice.edu (William Manning) writes:
>   * 
>   * >From April Marine comes the following....
>   * > 
>   * > People may also be interested in knowing that if you point a whois
>   * > search at the host ds.internic.net, it will search the ds.internic.net
>   * > host, the rs.internic.net host, and the nic.ddn.mil host, in that
>   * > order.  So the command would be:
>   * > 
>   * > whois -h ds.internic.net search-string
>   * > 
>   * 
>   * This raises an interesting question... With the allocation of CIDR blocks
>   * to network providers, including the in-addr information, we are further
>   * fragmenting the illusion of a cohesive information repository.
>   * 
>   * Are each of the regionals who get a CIDR block encouraged to either report
>   * back assignments or run a local whois?
>   *
> Certainly, the providers in Europe have to do this. In fact that are
> bound to do this to become an Local Internet Registry as part of the
> procedures. See RIPE-72 (soon to be updated) for more details.
>  (rest of message deleted)