[ripe.net #102454] [henk at ripe.net: Re: [ris-int] Re: RIPE NCC RIS box @ PAIX]
Matthew Williams matthew at ripe.net
Mon Aug 16 17:57:18 CEST 2004
Sorry, I don't see your point. This case is exactly the same as with rrc09: Based on the principle that an integer relates to a particular collection point irrespective of hardware, then keeping the same number doesn't make sense, and might even cause confusion among RIS users. At first _I_ didn't agree, but Rene and Lorenzo managed to convince me that they were right ;) Cheers, Matthew > -----Original Message----- > From: ris-int-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ris-int-admin at ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Arife Vural > Sent: 16 August 2004 17:37 > To: Matthew Williams > Cc: ops at ripe.net; ris-int at ripe.net; 'James Aldridge'; 'Bruce Campbell' > Subject: Re: [ripe.net #102454] [henk at ripe.net: Re: [ris-int] > Re: RIPE NCC RIS box @ PAIX] > > > > > I think we had this discussion before re: rrc09, and then > we came to a > > different conclusion. At least, we should be consequent in order to > > cause minimal confusion. What changed? > > rrc09 was bit different than rrc08. rrc09 did not have DB, rrc08 has > and I like to continue to use the same DB when it moves to PAIX. And > purpose of rrc08 was getting the view from West Coast and we > will be available still at the West Coast. I do not think > it's useful to split rawdata just because we will change IX > at the same area. > > Arife >
[ Ris-int Archives ]