Re: The addition of guarded fields
Marten, I think that the RIPE NCC have to split blocks. RIPE NCC is a neutral organisation that can do it without problems. If we do not agree on that, that means a very long procedure to update the guarded fields, and I believe that no service provider will want to rely on the efficiency of a NIC for its routing policy. So that mean that nobody will use those fields for routing, so the information may be completly out of date. But I agree with Blasco on one point, the maintainer of the block must be inform that the block has been splitted Gilles
---- Gilles Farrache writes:
Marten,
I think that the RIPE NCC have to split blocks. RIPE NCC is a neutral organisation that can do it without problems. If we do not agree on that, that means a very long procedure to update the guarded fields, and I believe that no service provider will want to rely on the efficiency of a NIC for its routing policy. So that mean that nobody will use those fields for routing, so the information may be completly out of date.
I think we, as part of the european networking community, should pursue the spreading of technical knowledge among network providers and network operators. IP routing is not a trivial issue for the time being, and the best results in routing coordination is obtained, in my opinion, when the largest possible number of network operators do the right thing. This is the spirit of the Internet, I think. The NCC is a neutral organizations but this does not mean they should act on behalf of network operators. The net result could be a minor diffusion of relevant technical knowledge. Service providers and even large network users communities should know what they are doing when registering networks, creating guarded fields. Also, local registries (down the tree from the NCC) must improve their efficiency. The Internet is growing very very fast in Europe and we have to use solutions that scale. A do-all NCC is not the solution, I guess. I think the NCC is going is the opposite direction (i.e. proposing the PRIDE project, which I feel a very important activity in the next future)
But I agree with Blasco on one point, the maintainer of the block must be inform that the block has been splitted
Thank you, Gilles. ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito@nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ----------
bonito@nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * I think we, as part of the european networking community, should pursue * the spreading of technical knowledge among network providers and * network operators. IP routing is not a trivial issue for the time being, * and the best results in routing coordination is obtained, in my opinion, * when the largest possible number of network operators do the right thing. * This is the spirit of the Internet, I think. * The NCC is a neutral organizations but this does not mean they should * act on behalf of network operators. The net result could be a minor * diffusion of relevant technical knowledge. * Service providers and even large network users communities should know * what they are doing when registering networks, creating guarded fields. * * Also, local registries (down the tree from the NCC) must improve their * efficiency. The Internet is growing very very fast in Europe and we * have to use solutions that scale. A do-all NCC is not the solution, I guess * . * I think the NCC is going is the opposite direction (i.e. proposing * the PRIDE project, which I feel a very important activity in the next futur * e) * Thought I'd comment on this a little as I'm currently working on much stronger syntax checking for the new databsse software. Whilst it is not complete it's pretty careful and it raises exactly the point Blasco brings up. Here are the basic results on the Database breaking them down by object. Object Errors Oks Warnings Total (% in error) aut-num 47 47 0 94 50.0 bdry-gw 0 7 0 7 0.0 domain 1284 913 0 2197 58.4 inetnum 899 8566 0 9465 9.5 person 1087 8824 10 9921 11.0 rout-pr 0 3 0 3 0.0 This is pretty bad as you can see. This includes much stronger checking of mandatory fields and syntax as they are written in the documents which is why the aut-num is high as we currently have a lot of missing mandatory fields. Once the new software is in place the syntax checker will spot all of these. However, it still remains that many entries are submitted without even checking the syntax of the object. At some point we must also remove these errors although this needs some careful thinking about. Any ideas ? Of course one can argue that stronger syntax checking should have been done from day one but it is historic as part of this original software was done before their was an NCC. However, please can we all try to be careful with updates at least til' the software is fully in place ;-). --Tony.
participants (3)
-
bonito＠nis.garr.it -
farrache＠ccpnxt5.in2p3.fr -
Tony Bates