more on prdb format

Some more things on the format of prdb a la ripe-181:

- I thought we agreed to store the objects without syntactic sugar?
The whois server automatically inserts the sugar and if it is already
in the plain db file, it will show up twice in the whois output ....

- there are some extra keywords for the peer definition in an inet-rtr
which are not ripe-181, what are we going to do with them? Examples:
*pe: 144.171.1.254 AS2649 BGP passive
*pe: 192.231.238.3 AS2020 EGP def

According to the spec, after the protocol indication there can be an
optional AS number only ....

- then the number of AS objects that have no policy information. May
of them have fake maintainers, many of them are European, and I
personally do not think they should be in the prdb (or rrdb for that
matter). What we have done at the NCC is simply place them in their
own little database (source NCC-AS-LIST) which is simply generated
automatically and provides at least a descr for all unknown ASes in
the RR. I think you should only register the AS that have policy info.
If not, the RRs have loads of overlapping and possibly inconsistent or
differently formatted information which is no good.

That's it for now,

-Marten




-------- Logged at  Wed Nov 16 22:57:51 MET 1994  ---------