misleading use of the connect: field in inetnum: object
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Tue Sep 7 19:20:40 CEST 1993
Hi Daniel, >the real problem with the "connect" attribute is that it still is the >badly defined kludge it has been from the start. I can say so because I >invented it. Today we have a well defined and agreed way of specifying >the information you want: It is called ripe-81 by the document fans and >"The Routing Registry" by afficionados. I had one and only one basic concern: when we put info into the DB, this info should HELP and not CONFUSE. I agree with you that "connect:" is maybe far from optimal. >In my opinion we should put our efforts in getting the RR populated >rather than trying to specify how to use an un-specifyable kludge. So now I've got another concern: populating the RR helps the "afficionados", but probably doesn't help the (end-)user in finding out what he/she can expect. I'd assume people are still thinking in terms of NORDUnet, NSF, RIPE and not in terms of ASxxx and ASyyy. And the basic issue remains - you can just as well put some string into the "as-*:" fields and still have only EARN-E-Mail connectivity... >The original plan was to keep connect alive with the only legal value of >LOCAL. Maybe we shouldn't even do this. An item for discussion at the RIPE >meeting! Definitely! And thanks for spending some minutes on it. Cheers, Wilfried.
[ lir-wg Archive ]