7 Feb
2016
7 Feb
'16
2:54 p.m.
What would you have me do? It's clear that the
majority of the entries in
the DNS are bogus. We have NOTHING to reference except the portal data.
Doesn't it make sense to try to get that data in order?
Yes, but as I mentioned many times before, there is no sane way of migrating the
data that *is* still valid towards the portal. There is no clear way for the user
to request their existing allocation to be loaded into the portal. Not automatically
(e.g. by querying the DNS), not manually (by filling in a form with existing addresses).
One can only ask for new allocations and place a comment that says in fact one wants
to move an existing allocation. I cannot ask the users to do that, and I don't
like to edit all those requests manually. I think the portal should facilitate
migration of existing data at least until that process is completed.
There should also be procedures to migrate large blocks of data, as our own network
infrastructure has hundreds of hosts that I do not want to enter in a webform one by
one!
I have recovered all update mail messages sent to the portal after 1994-01-01 and
have added a date stamp to all the lines in my own hosts file with the latest
date of an addition of data for each callsign.
The file is available at http://pe1chl.nl.eu.org/hosts/hosts.137
Today I have done another mailing and a local amateur radio newssite has placed
it on their newspage. This time I requested all the users that want to *keep* their
allocation to reply by mail.
When I get a reply or make a new registration I update the stamp to the current date.
Next month I will just delete all records with a date before 2010.
That should get rid of all the records from "the old days" and only leave those
that
were added during our more recent experiments. Last time I did this (two years ago)
I kept the records for those that I could not reach, but this time those will get
deleted. (of course they can always request to get them back when they notice it)
Rob
7 Feb
7 Feb
3:12 p.m.
New subject: DNS cleanup
People -- we need the cleanup. I say, be aggressive. If an active DNS
record gets deleted, just recreate it -- Sheesh.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
--
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
What would you have me do? It's clear that
the majority of the entries in
the DNS are bogus. We have NOTHING to reference except the portal data.
Doesn't it make sense to try to get that data in order?
Yes, but as I mentioned many times before, there is no sane way of
migrating the
data that *is* still valid towards the portal. There is no clear way for
the user
to request their existing allocation to be loaded into the portal. Not
automatically
(e.g. by querying the DNS), not manually (by filling in a form with
existing addresses).
One can only ask for new allocations and place a comment that says in fact
one wants
to move an existing allocation. I cannot ask the users to do that, and I
don't
like to edit all those requests manually. I think the portal should
facilitate
migration of existing data at least until that process is completed.
There should also be procedures to migrate large blocks of data, as our
own network
infrastructure has hundreds of hosts that I do not want to enter in a
webform one by
one!
I have recovered all update mail messages sent to the portal after
1994-01-01 and
have added a date stamp to all the lines in my own hosts file with the
latest
date of an addition of data for each callsign.
The file is available at http://pe1chl.nl.eu.org/hosts/hosts.137
Today I have done another mailing and a local amateur radio newssite has
placed
it on their newspage. This time I requested all the users that want to
*keep* their
allocation to reply by mail.
When I get a reply or make a new registration I update the stamp to the
current date.
Next month I will just delete all records with a date before 2010.
That should get rid of all the records from "the old days" and only leave
those that
were added during our more recent experiments. Last time I did this (two
years ago)
I kept the records for those that I could not reach, but this time those
will get
deleted. (of course they can always request to get them back when they
notice it)
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
3:14 p.m.
New subject: DNS cleanup
+1
On February 7, 2016 3:12:11 PM EST, K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org> wrote:
>(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>_______________________________________________
>People -- we need the cleanup. I say, be aggressive. If an active DNS
>record gets deleted, just recreate it -- Sheesh.
>
>
>
>On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
>
>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> What would you have me do? It's clear that the majority of the
>entries in
>>> the DNS are bogus. We have NOTHING to reference except the portal
>data.
>>> Doesn't it make sense to try to get that data in order?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but as I mentioned many times before, there is no sane way of
>> migrating the
>> data that *is* still valid towards the portal. There is no clear way
>for
>> the user
>> to request their existing allocation to be loaded into the portal.
>Not
>> automatically
>> (e.g. by querying the DNS), not manually (by filling in a form with
>> existing addresses).
>>
>> One can only ask for new allocations and place a comment that says in
>fact
>> one wants
>> to move an existing allocation. I cannot ask the users to do that,
>and I
>> don't
>> like to edit all those requests manually. I think the portal should
>> facilitate
>> migration of existing data at least until that process is completed.
>> There should also be procedures to migrate large blocks of data, as
>our
>> own network
>> infrastructure has hundreds of hosts that I do not want to enter in a
>> webform one by
>> one!
>>
>> I have recovered all update mail messages sent to the portal after
>> 1994-01-01 and
>> have added a date stamp to all the lines in my own hosts file with
>the
>> latest
>> date of an addition of data for each callsign.
>> The file is available at http://pe1chl.nl.eu.org/hosts/hosts.137
>>
>> Today I have done another mailing and a local amateur radio newssite
>has
>> placed
>> it on their newspage. This time I requested all the users that want
>to
>> *keep* their
>> allocation to reply by mail.
>>
>> When I get a reply or make a new registration I update the stamp to
>the
>> current date.
>> Next month I will just delete all records with a date before 2010.
>> That should get rid of all the records from "the old days" and only
>leave
>> those that
>> were added during our more recent experiments. Last time I did this
>(two
>> years ago)
>> I kept the records for those that I could not reach, but this time
>those
>> will get
>> deleted. (of course they can always request to get them back when
>they
>> notice it)
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> 44Net mailing list
>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>------------------------------
>John D. Hays
>K7VE
>PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
><http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
><http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>
3:56 p.m.
New subject: DNS cleanup
I reviewed the proposed deletions for VK2, and I'm fairly confident those entries are
no longer required.
73, Matt VK2RQ
Envoyé via Outlook Mobile
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:16 PM -0800, "Bryan Fields"
<bryan(a)bryanfields.net> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
+1
On February 7, 2016 3:12:11 PM EST, K7VE - John wrote:
>(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>_______________________________________________
>People -- we need the cleanup. I say, be aggressive. If an active DNS
>record gets deleted, just recreate it -- Sheesh.
>
>
>
>On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rob Janssen wrote:
>
>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> What would you have me do? It's clear that the majority of the
>entries in
>>> the DNS are bogus. We have NOTHING to reference except the portal
>data.
>>> Doesn't it make sense to try to get that data in order?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but as I mentioned many times before, there is no sane way of
>> migrating the
>> data that *is* still valid towards the portal. There is no clear way
>for
>> the user
>> to request their existing allocation to be loaded into the portal.
>Not
>> automatically
>> (e.g. by querying the DNS), not manually (by filling in a form with
>> existing addresses).
>>
>> One can only ask for new allocations and place a comment that says in
>fact
>> one wants
>> to move an existing allocation. I cannot ask the users to do that,
>and I
>> don't
>> like to edit all those requests manually. I think the portal should
>> facilitate
>> migration of existing data at least until that process is completed.
>> There should also be procedures to migrate large blocks of data, as
>our
>> own network
>> infrastructure has hundreds of hosts that I do not want to enter in a
>> webform one by
>> one!
>>
>> I have recovered all update mail messages sent to the portal after
>> 1994-01-01 and
>> have added a date stamp to all the lines in my own hosts file with
>the
>> latest
>> date of an addition of data for each callsign.
>> The file is available at http://pe1chl.nl.eu.org/hosts/hosts.137
>>
>> Today I have done another mailing and a local amateur radio newssite
>has
>> placed
>> it on their newspage. This time I requested all the users that want
>to
>> *keep* their
>> allocation to reply by mail.
>>
>> When I get a reply or make a new registration I update the stamp to
>the
>> current date.
>> Next month I will just delete all records with a date before 2010.
>> That should get rid of all the records from "the old days" and only
>leave
>> those that
>> were added during our more recent experiments. Last time I did this
>(two
>> years ago)
>> I kept the records for those that I could not reach, but this time
>those
>> will get
>> deleted. (of course they can always request to get them back when
>they
>> notice it)
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> 44Net mailing list
>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>------------------------------
>John D. Hays
>K7VE
>PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
>
>
>
5:52 p.m.
New subject: DNS cleanup
People -- we need the cleanup. I say, be aggressive.
If an active DNS
record gets deleted, just recreate it
The active DNS records/users are the real customers here. All this
bookkeeping and number fandangling is just to facilitate and enhance
what they're doing. The technology exists to make it all auto-magic
and that's how it should be... A ping, telnet, ftp or email on a
regular basis should be enough of a keep-alive to preserve
registration.
Bill, WA7NWP
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
>
>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> What would you have me do? It's clear that the majority of the entries
in
>>> the DNS are bogus. We have NOTHING to reference except the portal data.
>>> Doesn't it make sense to try to get that data in order?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but as I mentioned many times before, there is no sane way of
>> migrating the
>> data that *is* still valid towards the portal. There is no clear way for
>> the user
>> to request their existing allocation to be loaded into the portal. Not
>> automatically
>> (e.g. by querying the DNS), not manually (by filling in a form with
>> existing addresses).
>>
>> One can only ask for new allocations and place a comment that says in fact
>> one wants
>> to move an existing allocation. I cannot ask the users to do that, and I
>> don't
>> like to edit all those requests manually. I think the portal should
>> facilitate
>> migration of existing data at least until that process is completed.
>> There should also be procedures to migrate large blocks of data, as our
>> own network
>> infrastructure has hundreds of hosts that I do not want to enter in a
>> webform one by
>> one!
>>
>> I have recovered all update mail messages sent to the portal after
>> 1994-01-01 and
>> have added a date stamp to all the lines in my own hosts file with the
>> latest
>> date of an addition of data for each callsign.
>> The file is available at http://pe1chl.nl.eu.org/hosts/hosts.137
>>
>> Today I have done another mailing and a local amateur radio newssite has
>> placed
>> it on their newspage. This time I requested all the users that want to
>> *keep* their
>> allocation to reply by mail.
>>
>> When I get a reply or make a new registration I update the stamp to the
>> current date.
>> Next month I will just delete all records with a date before 2010.
>> That should get rid of all the records from "the old days" and only
leave
>> those that
>> were added during our more recent experiments. Last time I did this (two
>> years ago)
>> I kept the records for those that I could not reach, but this time those
>> will get
>> deleted. (of course they can always request to get them back when they
>> notice it)
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> 44Net mailing list
>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
>
3210
days inactive
3210
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bill Vodall -
Bryan Fields -
K7VE - John -
Matt Maguire -
Rob Janssen