I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )
curtis at ans.net
Mon May 6 23:02:42 UTC 1996
In message <9605030534.AA13791 at wisdom.home.vix.com>, Paul A Vixie writes:
> 3.2. Protocol Independent Addresses
> Address Operations Area Example Usage
> abuse Customer Relations Inappropriate public behaviour
> noc Network Operations Network infrastructure problem
> trouble Network Operations Synonym for ``noc''
> support Customer Support Product or service not working
At least with ANS "trouble" and "noc" are not synonymous. NOC is lots
of people involved in network operations and normal trouble reporting
(can't get there from here reporting) need not bother the whole group.
Trouble is the current NOC staff on duty and are supposed to respond
immediately to mail in the trouble mailbox, usually openning a trouble
ticket and diagnosing the problem, in doing so starting the 15 minute
escallation timer for the oncall engineer. They also in practice
respond immediately to mail in the NOC mailbox, but then a lot of
people not on duty have to delete the mail when they come on call
which just makes more work.
If other providers have the same conventions or agree that these
conventions are usefull, then write them up however you like (more
briefly than I have done would be nice).
Another common mailing list is routing at provider. This is intended
more for technical routing questions or to resolve routing issues
between providers. This is more for routing design issues so
immediate response should not be expected on this list. Any "routing
is broken" messages should go to trouble, so they need to they can
page the people that can fix it rather than let it sit in some
It would be great if later you could include some of the NIC and IRR
mailboxes. Maybe next revision. For example:
auto-dbm Automated Registry Register routing objects
except MCI - auto-rr at mci.net
Only problem is I don't think there is consistency in the address
registries and routing registries use of mail aliases. Maybe this
could go on the RA web page and when there is better consistency, put
this in an RFC.
More information about the NANOG