[ripe.net #102454] [henk at ripe.net: Re: [ris-int] Re: RIPE NCC RIS box @ PAIX]
Arife Vural arife at ripe.net
Mon Aug 16 19:05:36 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. I do not think it would cause confusion. Anyway, when we do the changes, we should tell our users rrc08 is moved to PAIX because of not enough peers at MAE-West. > > At first _I_ didn't agree, but Rene and Lorenzo managed to convince me that they were right ;) > :-) I think I should chat with Rene, and Lorenzo to get some tips to convince you :-) Arife > 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 ]