Re: misleading use of the connect: field in inetnum: object
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1993 19:20:40 +0200
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.
