I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )

Tue May 7 01:44:16 UTC 1996

In message <9605031754.AA14659 at wisdom.home.vix.com>, Paul A Vixie writes:
> > > I've added ROUTING to do what TROUBLE is often used to do.
> > 
> > I question whether this is a good idea -- some providers have a
> > "routing" mailing list that isn't really intended for public
> > dissemination and use. For instance, routing at uunet.uu.net and
> > routing at es.net both bypass their respective NOCs and go straight to
> > engineering types -- perhaps we need to pick a new name for those
> > sorts of lists, but I really don't see what having a "routing"
> > buys us over "noc".
> 
> This is the kind of collision that makes this "standard" expensive to
> implement.  Folks elsewhere use ROUTING as a way to reach the folks
> who want to hear about externally visible routing problems; NETCOM
> for example advertises this address in its RADB elements.  I think
> that folks like UUNET and ESNET will have to pick new addresses if
> they don't want their engineers getting spammed.  Sorry about that.

ANS uses routing the same way uunet and esnet do.  I think MCI does
the same.  Netcom is in the minority.

Curtis