[db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects

Hi Niall

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 00:30, Niall O'Reilly via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> On 22 Nov 2022, at 19:11, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
>
> > Careful with this, e.g. AS-NULL. There are some situations where
> > referencing an empty set can be useful in RPSL.
>
> I'm not sure whether Nick meant this as a single exception,
> or rather as an example of a category of useful empty sets.

One empty set is the same as any other empty set. We only need one
clearly defined and easily recognisable empty set and we have that,
AS-NULL. If I create an empty set, AS-WALKER it doesn't do anything
that AS-NULL can't do. But AS-WALKER isn't instantly recognisable as
an empty set. You have to query it to see that. If we have 100 empty
sets in the database, including AS-NULL, that are all being used for
valid reasons, 99 of them are redundant, duplicated objects and should
be deleted...unless someone can tell me the value of a duplicated
empty set.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

>
> I can well imagine that most "operationally empty objects"
> (as Denis put it) are either useless or troublesome.
>
> As Nick says, "Careful with this."
>
> Niall
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/