nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:13:16 -0400
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Maybe we should start the nanog-law mailing list.
Maybe we should stick to the operational "Subject" at hand: log retention? Is there any disagreement that everybody SHOULD keep dynamic assignment logs for at least 36 hours as a Best Current Practice? Is there any evidence that Covad *keeps* logs, and responds to abuse notice? (I've seen no evidence that Covad has become such a bad actor that everybody should de-peer, but that might be incentive to keep better logs.)
Current thread:
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Charles (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Rob Evans (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Bogstad (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Jim Popovitch (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Charles Wyble (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Marshall Eubanks (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? William Allen Simpson (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Martin Hannigan (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Bogstad (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 14)