Re: Suggestion from Piet Beertema
As far as I remember there is a "*di" - tag for domain name entries listing IP adresses used in this domain. Hence no usual "nslookup"! A "*di" tag may ever have been proposed, but I don't see it in any of the RIPE templates.
Just have a look at document "ripe-w02" chapter 2.1 (RIPE Databases; R.Blokzijl <k13@nikhef.nl>; 28 August, 1990) Arnold
A "*di" tag may ever have been proposed, but I don't see it in any of the RIPE templates. Just have a look at document "ripe-w02" chapter 2.1 (RIPE Databases; R. Blokzijl <k13@nikhef.nl>; 28 August, 1990) Yep, you're right, the field is there; but the description is "IP addresses of networks in this domain". Now, how could this information possibly be useful in determining network service providers for a domain??? Unless of course you go through a chain of queries for each network found in a given domain and finding its *co or *n[io] field. Especially now, with the need to assign multiple class C numbers instead of a class B number to large organisations, this doesn't seem very practical to me in determining the service provider(s) for a given domain and building access lists from it. Furthermore, a practical problem is that domain entries are often submitted as a block by the registrar of the top (or next higher) domain; and for the registrar IP addresses in a domain are irrelevant information. By contrast, information about service providers *is* relevant information, if only in conjunction with setting up MX records, which often point to hosts of service providers and therefore require the permission of those service providers. In other words: you can't see putting information in the RIPE database separate from the practical issue of gathering the information and of the relevance of that information. Piet
I am still not clear what is really needed. I read: - information about service provider(s) for a domain But i assume what is meant is: - information about *e-mail* service provider(s) for a domain We have information about IP service providers in the database and while the currenct "connect" field is not very well defined we will have the more clearly defined fields soon. Questions: Do we need information about mail service providers separately? My answer: Don't know. Who will maintain the information? My answer: This is the key question. I think the providers should. This raises similar problems as the routing-privilege one. Is the RIPE database the right place? My answer: maybe. How to code it in the RIPE database (object, attribute)? My answer: Piet is right that it should go with the domain object. I would propose a new attribute "mail-provider" or some similar name. This should probably be an *ordered* list of tags much like the new routing privilege. It should definitely not be named just "connect". Daniel
I read: - information about service provider(s) for a domain But i assume what is meant is: - information about *e-mail* service provider(s) for a domain No: information about services other than IP is pretty useless for building router access lists. We have information about IP service providers in the database Related to domains? That's the point! Questions: Do we need information about mail service providers separately? I don't see a use for that right away. Piet
Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema@cwi.nl> writes:
We have information about IP service providers in the database Related to domains? That's the point!
I don't understand you at all. Why do you want that. Give an example.
I don't understand you at all. I stand corrected: I should have said 'service provider(s) in general to a domain, not just IP service only'. So yes, that specifically includes mail service provider(s). Piet
participants (3)
-
Arnold Nipper
-
Daniel Karrenberg
-
Piet Beertema