dom-net tag under domain
- Previous message (by thread): dom-net tag under domain
- Next message (by thread): dom-net tag under domain
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Antonio_Blasco Bonito
bonito at nis.garr.it
Mon Nov 29 16:49:44 CET 1993
> > bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: > * Dear NCC people, > > Hi Blasco, Hi Tony! > * > * I think that too strict sintax checking is applied in the case > * of the dom-net database field. An example follows. > * We are deploying technology to obsolete networks classes (A,B,C,...) > * and at the same time the RIPE database checking rules do not take > * into account the actual usage of dear old subnetworks? > * > Actually, the syntax is according to the document ripe-049 which sets > out the definition for dom-net. > > * In practice very often a number of subnetworks of a class B network are > * used to host machines in a domain while other subnetworks are used > * to host machines of a different domain. This is common for large > * networks in a city. > * > Perhaps, but as far as I understand this was meant to be just a pointer to > the networks possibly serviced as part of that domain. > I would say the dom-net is not very useful anyway. > > * We would like the checking rules to be relaxed in this case. > * Could you please do that? > > No Sorry - not unless the document is changed it'll stay as it is. > As I said I would prefer to see dom-net phased out rather than > preserving its life. > > --Tony I see your point, altough I do not agree... To bypass your sintax checker we will send our updates with the dom-net field converted to remarks... Cheers, Blasco
- Previous message (by thread): dom-net tag under domain
- Next message (by thread): dom-net tag under domain
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]