Re: Proposal on applying advisory attribute to "aut-num" object

["Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie +43 1 4065822-383" <]

>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 15:19:25 -0400
>From: "Steven J. Richardson" sjr@localhost
>
>  I think that this idea, while good, may be too restrictive unless
>  coupled with the ability to override this "global" advisory by
>  setting the "advisory" attribute of a specific prefix which originates
>  within the AS.

    Steve,
    
    I fully agree and I did mean and say this but didn't explicitely write
    it down in my proposal :-(  
    
    Unfortunately the wording in RIPE-131 isn't that explicit either,
    because it was written before your comment has arrived (sometimes the
    RIPE-NCC is really too fast ;-)
    
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:44:42 +0100
>From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost
>
>To sum up:
>
>ANS is not going to use advisories in aut-num since they will do away with
>advisories in at most two weeks.
>
>The advisory attribute will stay in aut-num objects and we all hope noone
>is going to use them again, ever.

    Daniel and David,
    
    is it worth the effort changing the one RIPE-131 paragraph to:
    
    	The advisory attribute of a route object applies to the specific
	route.  The advisory attribute of an aut-num object is intended to
	apply as default to all routes originated by the autonomous system
	in question providing a shorthand notation if the same advisory
	applies to most or all such routes.  If both are present the
	advisory attribute of a route object takes precedence over the
	advisory attribute of the aut-num object.  As with all advisories
	the specific semantics are defined by the 'target' AS.

    My feeling is, if you decided to keep it, it should be properly
    documented.  Sorry for my incomplete proposal !
    
    Regards
    Christian