On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 10:29:42PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 07/07/2021 15:05:
> > So 23456 is*not* excluded, but it can be if the DB-WG agrees.
>
> just to be clearer: AS23456 should be included in the list of ASNs which
> cannot be used as the origin.
Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 07/07/2021 15:05:
So 23456 is*not* excluded, but it can be if the DB-WG agrees.
just to be clearer: AS23456 should be included in the list of ASNs which
cannot be used as the origin.
Any objects which refer to it should be flagged for deletion.
Nick
Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote on 07/07/2021 15:44:
I think that AS23456 should be excluded as I can't think of any good
reason for having such a route object and seemingly no one else either
as there are none currently.
at one point years ago, before asn32s-capable software was widely
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:16:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote:
> >Should the database server software impose brittle restrictions
> >on that field? No, not worth the headache.
>
> I never suggested any changes to the data base software.
I think you are,
Job Snijders wrote:
>Should the database server software impose brittle restrictions
>on that field? No, not worth the headache.
I never suggested any changes to the data base software.
I have merely suggested that *existing* route objects that make
reference to bogon ASNs should be deleted
In message ,
Job Snijders wrote:
>However, the following two restrictions are not optimal in my opinion.
>
>> Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
>> the *public* use of ASNs that have -never- been assigned by any RIR to
>> any party?
>>
>> Who is insisting
Hi Job,
I just replied to the previous thread regarding this so I have reposted it
below (summary: +1/LGTM)
I think that AS23456 should be excluded as I can't think of any good reason
for having such a route object and seemingly no one else either as there
are none currently.
Hi Ed,
I think that AS23456 should be excluded as I can't think of any good reason
for having such a route object and seemingly no one else either as there
are none currently.
https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false=false=origin=true=AS23456=RIPE
So assuming that I didn't mess up
Hi Job,
> On 7 Jul 2021, at 15:08, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote:
>
> Hi Working Group,
>
> I'd like to clarify my position, Ronald lists three restrictions, the
> totality of those restrictions is what I consider brittle.
>
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via
Good news everyone, most of the work was already done! :-)
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:08:18PM +, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
> > Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
> > the
Hi Working Group,
I'd like to clarify my position, Ronald lists three restrictions, the
totality of those restrictions is what I consider brittle.
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
> Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively
Hi Ronald,
It is a matter of feasibility. In this context, at this layer of the
technology stack it is up to the database clients to filter out
information they do not consider of interest. The database is merely a
conduit between an authorized internet number resource holder and the
database
12 matches
Mail list logo
