[db-wg] bug? accepting larger than 32 bit BGP Communities in RPSL
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] bug? accepting larger than 32 bit BGP Communities in RPSL
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] bug? accepting larger than 32 bit BGP Communities in RPSL
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Jan 3 21:23:03 CET 2013
On 02/01/2013 14:59, Job Snijders wrote: > Accepting 64 bit values where only 32bit values can exist is absolute > garbage and should not be accepted by the RIPE DB. Good grief, Job, it's only zeros and ones. Do chill out - bugs happen! Nick > Kind regards, > > Job > > On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Kaveh Ranjbar <kranjbar at ripe.net> wrote: > >> Hello all and happy new year! >> >> To answer Wilfried's first question, in almost all cases we check for >> the values to be within defined (or logical) ranges. In the new RIPE >> Database update software we have centralised definitions for these kind >> of values and other syntax check and business rules. Now it is very easy >> to either add/remove or adjust new checks. >> >> In general, missing syntax checks are considered software bugs and will >> be fixed as soon as they are discovered by us or reported by our users. >> >> Your second question is aimed at the community and we are also >> interested to know what community thinks the rules should be. At the >> moment for the RIPE Database business rule checks we have a mix of both >> scenarios: >> >> - The Routing Registry part of RIPE Database is more liberal and is >> mainly bound to syntax checks (e.g. ROUTE(6) objects, set objects and >> AUT-NUM's routing attributes). >> >> - The Resource Registry part -- mainly to enforce policies -- has many >> business rules and checks embedded into it. Two examples are name server >> provisioning checks for domain objects which is far beyond checking the >> "nserver:" attribute syntax and INET(6)NUM "status:" attribute checks. >> >> Kind regards, >> Kaveh >> >> --- >> Kaveh Ranjbar, >> RIPE NCC Database Group Manager >> >> On Jan 2, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote: >> >>> Q to the DB Team: is the software doing any checks against numeric values >>> as numbers or is the data treated/stored exclusively as text? >>> >>> As a sort of more general sideline, >>> there may be other limits or boundary conditions, and I am wondering where >>> the proper place is to "enforce" those. I know about the 'be rigorous about >>> what you transmit and liberal (and careful) in what you accept'. >>> But I wonder whether that would not apply to tools just equally? >> > > > -- Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] bug? accepting larger than 32 bit BGP Communities in RPSL
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] bug? accepting larger than 32 bit BGP Communities in RPSL
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]