Re: RIPE-CLNS: Alternate approache

[Victor Reijs <]

Hello Henk,

Could you please react to this mail of Sue (perhaps together with Daniel). It
seems that there are some changes proposed to the document discussed within RIPE.

It is important to have a common view of would should be in the RIPE database
and if there need to be made changes before a big use is made of it. Please
provide your input to this.

All the best,



Victor

==> From: Susan Hares

> Victor:
> 
> 
> I'd like to suggest a departure from your current
> structure of the current RIPE for clnp.
> I think the CLNP information should mirror the
> IP functions.  IP keeps the following information:
> 
> 	1) Registration of IP addresses
> 		and AS information
> 	2) Registration of Routing policy
> 	3) Registration of Aggregation policy
> 
> CLNP ought to have as close as a format to
> IP as possible.
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> I would suggest use use two different denotations:
> 
> i-prefix - for the nlri prefix
> RD-prefix - for the domain's RDI which is
> 		the AS equivalent.
> 
> I find your use in the SURFNET prefixes to confuse
> between RDI - which is the AS equivalent and the nlri
> prefix.