Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Fri Jan 19 18:59:03 CET 1996
> My idea was just because I think that it is already more important to > which registry/provider a network belongs than to which country, unless > you want to introduce Internet customs based on country borders ;-) I prefer to *not* mix things like *allocations* held by *local IRs* (this is administrative stuff) with things like networks having a particular range of addresses *assigned* and *used* in a limited number of countries and being connected to the Internet by some *ISP(s)*. Btw Christian, you probably know my position wrt borders, customs and taxes :-) > Anyhow, of course it should be kept if there is any use for it ! But I > don't think that introducing an additional provider *attribute* within > the inetnum object will need the design-work for a provider *object* to > be finished. The only thing that should be finished is the decision > about the provider IDs which will be used as a DB key. Are you really talking "provider" (ISP) or are you talking "registry"? In many cases these happen to be the same (organisation) but this is not required. I think that we don't need the LIR info in objects describing *assigned* addresses because the IR that performed the assignment can be identified by looking at the less specific object(s). > Ok, let's finish this sidestep and find a solution for the country > attribute. I agree. The provider (or TLD admin) concept might become interesting again when we start to talk about hierarchical authorization for object creation, like route objects and domain objects :-) Wilfried.
[ db-wg Archives ]