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] Suggestion further validity-checking
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Tue May 28 13:36:45 CEST 2019
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:31 PM Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 28/05/2019 12:12: > > Unfortunately, no cleanup was done when this rule was implemented, > > but in recent times we try to do this. I will also contact the > > maintainers of these route objects and ask them to fix the holes > > attribute(s). > I wonder if this key should be formally deprecated. It's used for 643 > out of 302354 route: objects and 40 out of 28803 route6: objects, i.e. > ~0.2% and 0.1% respectively. The complexity associated with handling it > is substantial and most tools simply ignore it. +1 for deprecation of "holes:" key. Kind regards, Job
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]