riswhois request: reporting parent routes (fwd)
Hi, Though it's nice to have an active user providing suggestions, I have the feeling his latest request would fall in the category "feature creep", making the program larger, more complex and the output harder to understand. However, before sending him a polite no-no, I'd like to ask how others in RIS feel about this. Should RISwhois embark on the trail of cross examining other routes (parents, daughters, siblings, ...) or not? -- Rene ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: <431C426B.1060807@priv.onet.pl> From: Andrzej Adam Filip <anfi@poczta.onet.pl> Sender: ris-users-admin@ripe.net To: ris-users@ripe.net Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:04:43 +0200 Subject: riswhois: reporting parent routes Could riswhois generate statistics of "parent routes" for given route? [ parent, not ancestor] My goal is achieve better coverage of IP->AS mappings based on riswhois provided data. Unanimous AS reports (after ignoring default route) give very good starting point I would like to extend. For 65.54.160.0/19 I would like to know how many of 58 rispeers reporting the route reports also 65.52.0.0/14 route as belonging to AS8070. e.g. route: 65.54.160.0/19 origin: AS12076 [...] num-rispeers: 58 numrp-parent: 58 65.54.160.0/19 AS8070 P.S. As security precaution riwhois may limit number of parent routes reported to e.g. <10 ---------------------------------------------------------- $whois -h riswhois.ripe.net -- 65.54.162.200 [leading comments and default route entry skipped] route: 65.52.0.0/14 origin: AS8070 descr: MICROSOFT-CORP---MSN-AS-BLOCK - Microsoft Corp lastupd-frst: 2005-07-21 08:28Z 202.12.28.190@rrc00 lastupd-last: 2005-09-05 07:49Z 193.111.172.55@rrc03 seen-at: rrc00,rrc01,rrc03,rrc04,rrc05,rrc06,rrc07,rrc10,rrc11,rrc12,rrc13,rrc14 num-rispeers: 58 source: RISWHOIS route: 65.54.160.0/19 origin: AS12076 descr: HOTMAIL-AS - Hotmail Corporation lastupd-frst: 2005-06-29 08:05Z 195.66.224.151@rrc01 lastupd-last: 2005-09-05 07:49Z 193.111.172.55@rrc03 seen-at: rrc00,rrc01,rrc03,rrc04,rrc05,rrc06,rrc07,rrc10,rrc11,rrc12,rrc13,rrc14 num-rispeers: 58 source: RISWHOIS ---------------------------------------------------------- -- Andrzej [en:Andrew] Adam Filip anfi@priv.onet.pl anfi@xl.wp.pl All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Hi,
Though it's nice to have an active user providing suggestions, I have the feeling his latest request would fall in the category "feature creep", making the program larger, more complex and the output harder to understand.
I tend to agree. RISwhois is a tool with a known and limited functionality, and we should keep it that way. I'm also a little reluctant to add every feature one can think of just because one person asks for it. However, what he wants is in the data and I can see some use for it. So, what I'd suggest is that this is put in the PDP ;-) Put the suggestion in the RIS update for R51, ask if there is interest from the community. If so, we can build "something" that does this (and we have to figure out internally who actually will do the job and when), if not, drop it. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine)
On 07.09 08:27, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
However, what he wants is in the data and I can see some use for it. So, what I'd suggest is that this is put in the PDP ;-) ....
Fine, as long as it is speced as a tool that is separate from riswhois and that produces this data on demand from the risdb. Daniel
At 09:36 07/09/2005, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 07.09 08:27, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
However, what he wants is in the data and I can see some use for it. So, what I'd suggest is that this is put in the PDP ;-) ....
Fine, as long as it is speced as a tool that is separate from riswhois and that produces this data on demand from the risdb.
Yes, sure, I said "build something". I don't mind doing this, but I don't want to do this for 1 user. Henk
Daniel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine)
On 06.09 15:30, Rene Wilhelm wrote:
Hi,
Though it's nice to have an active user providing suggestions, I have the feeling his latest request would fall in the category "feature creep", making the program larger, more complex and the output harder to understand.
However, before sending him a polite no-no, I'd like to ask how others in RIS feel about this. Should RISwhois embark on the trail of cross examining other routes (parents, daughters, siblings, ...) or not?
I do not understand the question fully but I would point him to the RIS itself. If this is a general question we could do a specialised query to the RIS for it. But not complicate riswhois. Small is beautiful. Daniel
participants (3)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Henk Uijterwaal -
Rene Wilhelm