Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down

[chip <chip.gwyn () gmail com>]

On 12/21/05, Albert Meyer <from_nanog () corenap com> wrote:
> I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. I
> looked
> around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind
> channels to
> organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the
> channel
> to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good
> idea?
>
> Andrew Kirch wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > william(at)elan.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog
Actually, looks like #nanog on freenode is already registered as belonging
to NANOG:

/msg chanserv info #nanog
> chanserv< info #nanog
-ChanServ-      Channel: #nanog
-ChanServ-      Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago
-ChanServ-    Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago
-ChanServ-   Registered: 2 years 27 weeks 2 days (5h 49m 57s) ago
-ChanServ-        Topic: North American Network Operators Group
-ChanServ-        Email: biodragon2002 () hotmail com
-ChanServ-      Options: Secure, SecureOps
-ChanServ-    Mode Lock: -s

--chip
--
Just my $.02, your mileage may vary,  batteries not included, etc....