[routing-wg] Fw: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

None at all that I have ever come across. Support depreciation.

Cheers,

Ben

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: routing-wg <routing-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of ripedenis--- via routing-wg <routing-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:13:03 PM
To: RIPE Routing Working Group
Subject: [routing-wg] Fw: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

Colleagues

We have had a suggestion (with some support) on the DB-WG mailing list about deprecating the "holes:" attribute in ROUTE(6) objects. Perhaps the Routing WG could consider if this attribute has any value in the RIPE Database.

cheers
denis

co-chair DB-WG

----- Forwarded message -----
From: Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net>
To: Edward Shryane <eshryane at ripe.net>
Cc: "db-wg at ripe.net" <db-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2019, 13:30:30 CEST
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

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.

Nick


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20190528/0443871e/attachment.html>