dom-net tag under domain
Dear NCC people, I think that too strict sintax checking is applied in the case of the dom-net database field. An example follows. We are deploying technology to obsolete networks classes (A,B,C,...) and at the same time the RIPE database checking rules do not take into account the actual usage of dear old subnetworks? In practice very often a number of subnetworks of a class B network are used to host machines in a domain while other subnetworks are used to host machines of a different domain. This is common for large networks in a city. We would like the checking rules to be relaxed in this case. Could you please do that? ---------- ---------- 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 ---------- ---------- Forwarded message:
From giuliana Mon Nov 29 14:47:06 1993 From: giuliana (Giuliana Tamorri) Message-Id: <9311291347.AA07375@jolly.nis.garr.it> Subject: To: bonito (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 14:47:04 MET X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
domain: astro.it x400-domain: c=it; admd=garr; prmd=astro; org: astronet admin-c: Leopoldo Benacchio tech-c: Roberto Di Luca postmaster: Roberto Di Luca zone-c: Roberto Di Luca nserver: 137.204.64.15 boas3.bo.astro.it nserver: 192.12.192.5 dns.nis.garr.it dom-net: 137.204.64.0 137.204.51.0 192.94.71.0 150.217.20.0 dom-net: 143.167.30.0 147.162.26.0 130.192.100.0 140.105.72.0 dom-net: 192.84.153.0 192.9.200.0 remarks: national astronomical observatory network changed: <DILUCA@ALMA02.CINECA.IT> 930602 source: TEST *ERROR*: syntax error in "dom-net" - illegal IP network number 137.204.64.0 *ERROR*: syntax error in "dom-net" - illegal IP network number 143.167.30.0
bonito@nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * Dear NCC people, * Hi Blasco, * I think that too strict sintax checking is applied in the case * of the dom-net database field. An example follows. * We are deploying technology to obsolete networks classes (A,B,C,...) * and at the same time the RIPE database checking rules do not tak * >
Sorry for the last mistake.... bonito@nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * Dear NCC people, Hi Blasco, * * I think that too strict sintax checking is applied in the case * of the dom-net database field. An example follows. * We are deploying technology to obsolete networks classes (A,B,C,...) * and at the same time the RIPE database checking rules do not take * into account the actual usage of dear old subnetworks? * Actually, the syntax is according to the document ripe-049 which sets out the definition for dom-net. * In practice very often a number of subnetworks of a class B network are * used to host machines in a domain while other subnetworks are used * to host machines of a different domain. This is common for large * networks in a city. * Perhaps, but as far as I understand this was meant to be just a pointer to the networks possibly serviced as part of that domain. I would say the dom-net is not very useful anyway. * We would like the checking rules to be relaxed in this case. * Could you please do that? No Sorry - not unless the document is changed it'll stay as it is. As I said I would prefer to see dom-net phased out rather than preserving its life. --Tony * * ---------- ---------- * 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 * ---------- ---------- * * Forwarded message: * > From giuliana Mon Nov 29 14:47:06 1993 * > From: giuliana (Giuliana Tamorri) * > Message-Id: <9311291347.AA07375@jolly.nis.garr.it> * > Subject: * > To: bonito (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) * > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 14:47:04 MET * > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] * > * > domain: astro.it * > x400-domain: c=it; admd=garr; prmd=astro; * > org: astronet * > admin-c: Leopoldo Benacchio * > tech-c: Roberto Di Luca * > postmaster: Roberto Di Luca * > zone-c: Roberto Di Luca * > nserver: 137.204.64.15 boas3.bo.astro.it * > nserver: 192.12.192.5 dns.nis.garr.it * > dom-net: 137.204.64.0 137.204.51.0 192.94.71.0 150.217.20.0 * > dom-net: 143.167.30.0 147.162.26.0 130.192.100.0 140.105.72.0 * > dom-net: 192.84.153.0 192.9.200.0 * > remarks: national astronomical observatory network * > changed: <DILUCA@ALMA02.CINECA.IT> 930602 * > source: TEST * > *ERROR*: syntax error in "dom-net" - illegal IP network number 137.204. * 64.0 * > *ERROR*: syntax error in "dom-net" - illegal IP network number 143.167. * 30.0 * >
bonito@nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * Dear NCC people,
Hi Blasco,
Hi Tony!
* * I think that too strict sintax checking is applied in the case * of the dom-net database field. An example follows. * We are deploying technology to obsolete networks classes (A,B,C,...) * and at the same time the RIPE database checking rules do not take * into account the actual usage of dear old subnetworks? * Actually, the syntax is according to the document ripe-049 which sets out the definition for dom-net.
* In practice very often a number of subnetworks of a class B network are * used to host machines in a domain while other subnetworks are used * to host machines of a different domain. This is common for large * networks in a city. * Perhaps, but as far as I understand this was meant to be just a pointer to the networks possibly serviced as part of that domain. I would say the dom-net is not very useful anyway.
* We would like the checking rules to be relaxed in this case. * Could you please do that?
No Sorry - not unless the document is changed it'll stay as it is. As I said I would prefer to see dom-net phased out rather than preserving its life.
--Tony
I see your point, altough I do not agree... To bypass your sintax checker we will send our updates with the dom-net field converted to remarks... Cheers, Blasco
As Tony already said we'd rather not do that right now to avoid valatility in database semantics. Please note that this will be fixed automatically and in a very general manner once the database goes classless! Suggestion: The dom-net field is a "hint" field only. It does not hurt at all to list the whole network even if only part of it is used by the particular domain. One net can appear in several domain objects. Daniel
As Tony already said we'd rather not do that right now to avoid valatility in database semantics. Please note that this will be fixed automatically and in a very general manner once the database goes classless!
Suggestion: The dom-net field is a "hint" field only. It does not hurt at all to list the whole network even if only part of it is used by the particular domain. One net can appear in several domain objects.
Daniel
In principle I agree, but to apply your suggestion we would have to change many entries which were written under the assumption that subnetworks were allowed in dom-net... We will rewrite dom-net: as remarks: dom-net: unless you can give us a piece of perl software (to put before the sintax checker) which converts from "subnet" to "whole net". Perl programmers are a very scarse resource here... ---------- ---------- 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: * > * > As Tony already said we'd rather not do that right now to avoid valatilit * y * > in database semantics. Please note that this will be fixed automatically * > and in a very general manner once the database goes classless! * > * > Suggestion: The dom-net field is a "hint" field only. It does not hurt at * all * > to list the whole network even if only part of it is used by the particul * ar * > domain. One net can appear in several domain objects. * > * > Daniel * * In principle I agree, but to apply your suggestion we would have to change * many entries which were written under the assumption that subnetworks were * allowed in dom-net... * We will rewrite dom-net: as remarks: dom-net: unless you can give us a piec * e * of perl software (to put before the sintax checker) which converts from * "subnet" to "whole net". Perl programmers are a very scarse resource here.. * . Okay, seeing as I seemed a bit harsh yesterday (wasn't intended). Here is a piece of perl that do it. Just did this in a few mins but should do it. Just pipe it through. Something like cat object | perl this-prog while (<>) { chop; if(/^di:/ || /^dom-net:/) { ($tmp,$value) = split (/\s+/, $_, 2); printf "%-10s", $tmp; @list = split(/\s+/,$value); foreach $j (0..$#list) { $net = &munge($list[$j]); printf " %s", $net; } print "\n"; next; } else { printf "%s\n", $_; } } sub munge { local($str) = @_; local($ind) = 0; local($val) = ""; local(@add) = split(/\./, $str); foreach $ind (0..$#add) { if ($add[0] < 128) { $val = "$add[0]".".0.0.0"; return $val; } if ($add[0] < 192) { $val = "$add[0]"."."."$add[1]".".0.0"; return $val; } if ($add[0] < 224) { $val = "$add[0]"."."."$add[1]"."."."$add[2]".".0"; return $val; } } } Cheers, --Tony.
participants (3)
-
bonito＠nis.garr.it -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Tony Bates