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/
[db-wg] Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at ntt.net
Thu Jul 19 15:50:11 CEST 2018
Dear Nathalie, On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:18:37PM +0200, Nathalie Trenaman via db-wg wrote: > We will implement these changes in the Release Candidate environment > on Thursday, 2 August and go to full production on Tuesday, 4 > September. > > Our implementation plan can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-implementation In section 5, the following is stated: """For NRTM, we don't plan to separate out the stream by source. Updates from both the RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH sources will be included. The source is specified in the request (e.g., -g RIPE:3:11012700-LAST), but updates from both RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH will be returned. The client will need to filter on the source attribute as needed.""" I'd like to ask that this aspect is reconsidered. I'd prefer to mirror the two data sources as two separate data streams. So "-g RIPE:3:11012700-LAST" should only return proper 'RIPE' objects, and additionally I can track RIPE-NONAUTH through the use of "-g RIPE-NONAUTH:3:1102700-LAST". Presenting objects to NRTM clients where the objects have a different source than was requested by the client is undefined behaviour. Therefor I'd prefer Using separate streams for the two separate sources, that way it is business as usual for the NRTM clients. To illustrate further: my current irrd.conf (irrd v3) is as following: job at eng0 ~$ grep ripe /etc/irrd.conf ! RIPE - ripe-dbm at ripe.net irr_database ripe mirror_host 193.0.6.135 4444 irr_database ripe mirror_protocol 3 irr_database ripe mirror-access 27 irr_database ripe filter routing-registry-objects|route6 And on September 4th I'd reconfigure it as: ! RIPE - ripe-dbm at ripe.net irr_database ripe mirror_host 193.0.6.135 4444 irr_database ripe mirror_protocol 3 irr_database ripe mirror-access 27 irr_database ripe filter routing-registry-objects|route6 irr_database ripe-nonauth mirror_host 193.0.6.135 4444 irr_database ripe-nonauth mirror_protocol 3 irr_database ripe-nonauth mirror-access 27 irr_database ripe-nonauth filter routing-registry-objects|route6 Similarly I'd expect that the RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH sources are provided as separate dumps at https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/ (where I'd expect ripe-nonauth.db.gz) and same for https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ Kind regards, Job
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]