Special ftp access for IRR?

Dale,
	This begs the larger question that remained unanswered from the mtg
	in San Jose of reliable database replication.  As I remember it,
	we agreed to default to use FTP to copy the various .db around
	for the first year as an interim step.  I beleive that Daniel
	indicated that this should be sufficent for the near term, even
	though we would have to come up with something else later.
	I point out that "stock FTP" seems to not fit the growth curve
	and we do need to do something soon.

	Perhaps we might utilize something like SUP or Harvest as the 
	model.  This would free up FTP for "normal" use and we could move
	to something that might last a bit longer before we need to retro-fit
	one more time.
	(This particular problem is listed in the proposed RPS charter)
> 
> All,
> 
>   We've been getting ftps of the RIPE.db failing this week because of the
> limit on maximum users.  Presumably, this problem will get worse rather
> than better as the registries become more popular, and not only RIPE will
> have the problem.
> 
>   Should we consider setting up secondary ftp ports for IRR members to
> use to exchange their data?
> 
> --Dale
> 
> > Your "cron" job
> > 
> > /ra/crons/import.ripe 2>&1 | tee /ra/crons/import.ripe.log | /ra/crons/err_if '***'
> > 
> > produced the following output:
> > 
> > 
> > 95-02-28 03:22 /ra/crons/import.ripe getting the new ripe.db...
> > ****** /ra/crons/import.ripe FTP ERROR: (Tue Feb 28 03:22:18 EST 1995)
> > 
> >   Sorry, there are too many users at this time (25 maximum).
> >   Please try again later.
> > 
> > User anonymous access denied.
> > Login failed.
> > Not connected.
> 


-- 
--bill



-------- Logged at  Tue Feb 28 16:22:48 MET 1995  ---------