This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/
NRTM proposal
- Previous message (by thread): NRTM proposal
- Next message (by thread): NRTM proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lu, Ping
PLu at cw.net
Mon Mar 11 18:45:08 CET 2002
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrei Robachevsky [mailto:andrei at ripe.net] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:00 AM > To: Lu, Ping > Cc: Bjorn Danielsson; db-beta at ripe.net; 'db-wg at ripe.net' > Subject: Re: NRTM proposal > > > Hi Ping, > [snip] > > > In fact, with both RIPEv3 and iRRd you can ADD twice (or rather many > times in a row), as this is considered as an update. > > So in our setup we use the approach you decribed below, but > with "ADD" > action. We put a mirror reflector in front of all mirrored > sources, and > every time it sees a non-compliant object mirror reflector > substitutes > it with "ADD + dummy object" without losing track of serials. > That sounds resaonable. If the client side wrapper see a [ADD|UPD|DEL]/unknown_object action then it should translate it to ADD/dummy_object and send it to the database. Should we consider this as the standard way to filter out object or a work-around ? Also can we all agree on a standard dummy_object like "limerick" (no side effect) ? [snip again] Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu at cw.net
- Previous message (by thread): NRTM proposal
- Next message (by thread): NRTM proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]