[db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Thu May 6 17:02:32 CEST 2004
Hi Pim, >| Hmm, this is nice, but not really necessary, because with the -c flag in >| the whois-query you should get tho the allocated /40 anyway. >| >| i.e. your change should increase the # of objects, bur not the Footprint >| of the IRT > [ ... ] > , should I revert that software >change and NOT set mnt-irt in the more specifics, or should I leave it >as is. Opinions ? setting it to the _same_ pointer is superfluous or just duplication of information. Unless you want to do it for a particular purpose (like to be explicit), it is a bad idea - having duplicate info in a dataset leaves you with the risk of missing one copy when an update is necessary. BUT - what you can do with this mechanism is to point to a _different_ irt object. Either for a subset of your own infrastructure (like a regional PoP), or as a 1st level contact for your downstreams. And those downstreams can update the contact info without having to bother you in your role as the _address_ bookkeeping :-) Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]