The addition of guarded fields
Tony Bates Tony.Bates at ripe.net
Tue Jul 27 16:55:00 CEST 1993
bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * I think we, as part of the european networking community, should pursue * the spreading of technical knowledge among network providers and * network operators. IP routing is not a trivial issue for the time being, * and the best results in routing coordination is obtained, in my opinion, * when the largest possible number of network operators do the right thing. * This is the spirit of the Internet, I think. * The NCC is a neutral organizations but this does not mean they should * act on behalf of network operators. The net result could be a minor * diffusion of relevant technical knowledge. * Service providers and even large network users communities should know * what they are doing when registering networks, creating guarded fields. * * Also, local registries (down the tree from the NCC) must improve their * efficiency. The Internet is growing very very fast in Europe and we * have to use solutions that scale. A do-all NCC is not the solution, I guess * . * I think the NCC is going is the opposite direction (i.e. proposing * the PRIDE project, which I feel a very important activity in the next futur * e) * Thought I'd comment on this a little as I'm currently working on much stronger syntax checking for the new databsse software. Whilst it is not complete it's pretty careful and it raises exactly the point Blasco brings up. Here are the basic results on the Database breaking them down by object. Object Errors Oks Warnings Total (% in error) aut-num 47 47 0 94 50.0 bdry-gw 0 7 0 7 0.0 domain 1284 913 0 2197 58.4 inetnum 899 8566 0 9465 9.5 person 1087 8824 10 9921 11.0 rout-pr 0 3 0 3 0.0 This is pretty bad as you can see. This includes much stronger checking of mandatory fields and syntax as they are written in the documents which is why the aut-num is high as we currently have a lot of missing mandatory fields. Once the new software is in place the syntax checker will spot all of these. However, it still remains that many entries are submitted without even checking the syntax of the object. At some point we must also remove these errors although this needs some careful thinking about. Any ideas ? Of course one can argue that stronger syntax checking should have been done from day one but it is historic as part of this original software was done before their was an NCC. However, please can we all try to be careful with updates at least til' the software is fully in place ;-). --Tony.
[ lir-wg Archives ]