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/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg]Representation of four byte AS numbers.
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Representation of four byte AS numbers.
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Representation of four byte AS numbers.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Joao Damas
Joao_Damas at isc.org
Mon Oct 20 15:34:20 CEST 2008
On 20/10/2008, at 15:16, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Gert Doering wrote: > [...] >> I've asked the routing- and DB-WG chairs to send a "heads up" to >> their >> respective working groups, so that interested parties can >> participate in >> the discussion (if needed), and because it will also need an >> implementation >> change in the RIPE DB software. > > I presume this will end up as a task for the RIPE NCC for our region. > > But... Just as a reminder or marker - who or which group is expected > to update the (relevant) tools these days? I am guessing that would be their respective maintainers or, for full open source projects, whoever implements the necessary changes. For instance, the IRRToolset is currently a community project, with some resource backing to ensure regular integration of patches submitted by contributors (see http://irrtoolset.isc.org/ for details) > And, do we have an common > understanding of the term "relevant" in this context? :-) > i think this is a classical feedback loop :-) Joao
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Representation of four byte AS numbers.
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Representation of four byte AS numbers.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]