Migration to RIPE 181

In the IRR meeting, we have agreed that one object (route object in
this case) can belong to multiple databases and the local database
server decides on which copy to prefer.

Hence, till ripe-db is ready, we can register European routes in RADB
with the advisory attribute.

The drawback of this approach is that after the ripe-db is ready there
is some cleanup work to be done.

Michael H. Behringer (M.H.Behringer at dante.org.uk) on December 22:
> Dale,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I take all your points, but I'm still not sure what
> Europeans then have to do, once the PRDB is retired, and the RIPE DB is not
> ready yet to support the advisory attribute for all European nets. Because
> then you cannot reasonably use the RIPE-DB, as the info there is not
> complete, but the Europeans can't send in NACRs either, because the PRDB
> doesn't exist any longer.
> 
> My view is that the RIPE-DB *has* to be ready by the time the PRDB retires
> to not mess things up for Europe. I do not see how we (in Europe) can
> reasonably work with a unfinished RIPE-DB and no PRDB any more. Do you?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> At 5:46 pm 21/12/94, Dale S. Johnson wrote:
> >Michael,
> >
> >  I had been thinking that this transition to using native RIPE data
> >(with advisory attributes embedded) would be a second phase of AS690
> >configurations--probably near the end of February.  It would be good
> >to get an advance start on it, however.  This change will actually be
> >very little coding work for us (just take data from an additional
> >source).  It will have considerably more effect on RIPE and end-users.
> >RIPE will need to support the advisory attribute, probably go through
> >an initial mass-loading of it (coordinated with the users), and presumably
> >deal with questions about it for the next six or so months.  (Merit
> >will of course also be offering support).  Since this change will both
> >be visible to users, and will require changes in their behavior (e.g.
> >maintaining the advisory attribute in their route objects), it would
> >be good to get started on this quite soon.
> >
> >  If the advisory attribute was in the software and initial values
> >were in place for all routes, and if we decided that users had had
> >enough advanced notice and training, then we could probably make the
> >step of converting to this data very quickly after the PRDB is retired
> >in January.
> >
> >--Dale
> >
> >
> >> From M.H.Behringer at dante.org.uk Wed Dec 21 07:57:32 1994
> >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 12:58:01 +0000
> >> To: epg at merit.edu
> >> From: M.H.Behringer at dante.org.uk (Michael H. Behringer)
> >> Subject: Re: Migration to RIPE 181
> >> Cc: dsj at merit.edu
> >>
> >> Hi Elise,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your response. I just want to quickly verify something.
> >>
> >> At 1:53 pm 20/12/94, epg at merit.edu wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >Yes, we have an agreement with the RIPE NCC that they will support the
> >> >advisory attribute.  I believe that when the RIPE NCC implemented
> >> >181, this was forseen.  I have copied Dale Johnson who has been
> >> >coordinating with Marten on this so he can correct me if I have
> >> >gotten it wrong.
> >>
> >> I know this is foreseen in the RIPE DB, and I know this has to be done
> >> (thats why I'm asking). Does this mean that by the 15th January the
> >> advisory attribute has to be in all RIPE DB route entries, and all networks
> >> that do not have this attribute by then will not be routed through NSFnet?
> >>
> >> Or will you still keep the current config for a while, to make sure none of
> >> the nets looses US connectivity. If so, when is the deadline for dropping
> >> this?
> >>
> >> >The goal is that no one will have to register twice.  We propose to
> >> >derive the AS690 configs from the RADB and the RIPE Routing Registry.
> >>
> >> Good.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your help, Elise,
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 


Cengiz



-------- Logged at  Fri Dec 23 21:16:21 MET 1994  ---------