Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
Not at all. Modern databases will use less resources when referencing objects from other tables instead of copying information to many other objects. Using the IRT object will save resources.
What I was thinking about was that I'm affraid that a lot of LIRs will make a lot (with scripts, basing on current admin-c,tech-c) of IRT objects for its customers. This will consume resources.
Hm, but disk space is not really a resource these days. More important is the speed and consistency of the database, and with that, links are much better ...
Furthermore: the definition of the IRT object does not to be changed. Simply that the abuse-field is mandatory in the future, and that a link to all INETNUM objects to an IRT object is required. Sounds pretty easy to implement ...
Adding mandatory abuse-mailbox is as easy as that.
Sure, but when it equal, I would choose IRT, because of the other reasons.
- IRT object still can be used as it is used right now (if LIR want's to monitor abuse, even if the inet(6)num or aut-num is handled by its customer)
That will be confusing for everybody.
Don't think so.
Multiple please have to be confusing. The aim is the "single place". Multiple place are also a problem for typos ...
BTW: I have no opinion for you proposal under http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html yet, but find the following really interesting:
"A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if the resource holder cannot be contacted".
Im having hopes, if we put that together with Tobias' http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-09.html
(BIG SMILE)
This is happening now. :D
You should definately read things more carefull. This is a part of current "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region."
Cannot find any difference for that point in your proposal. Your proposal says nothing about the introduction of an mandatory abuse-mailbox-field into INETNUM objects. Its just about the link to the sponsoring LIR or RIPE, what helps nothing to remove resources without a working contact. Your "pro" is: Another point of contact is known in case of any abuse. I bet there are LIRs that have no valid abuse contact either. And it does not help a lot to send abuse reports to RIPE NCC (maybe only to prove that the End User or LIR have no valid abuse contact). Please make that point more clear.
Piotr
Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de