You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: RIPE-DB WG Paris, item 2.3

  • To: "Wilfried Woeber, ACOnet, +43(1)58801-3614" < >
  • From: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 10:21:55 +0200
  • Cc:

This proposal is a sound one. However, I would a slight change in the syntax:

*in: <net-lo> - <net-hi> 


     - 	If a contiguous range consists of two supernet blocks 
	the use of a mask would still make two database objects necessary.

		12 contiguous addresses (one 8 and one 4 net block)

	If a range of network numbers is used this does not happen.
	Supernet masks can easily be calculated from the range information
	if needed.

     -  If a naive user queries a network in a range and gets the answer back
	as <net> <mask>, the meaning of the response will not necessarily be
	obvious. (The proposed "-" in the syntax is there to make the range
	meaning even more obvious)


  > "Wilfried Woeber, ACOnet, +43(1)58801-3614" woeber@localhost write
  > 	Andreas Schachtner (afs@localhost) submitted the following
  > 	proposal for discussion in Paris (RIPE-DB WG, agenda:2.3)
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  > -----
  > As it is getting more common, to allocate nets according to supernetting,
  > the RIPE database should reflect this.
  > It might change the perspective for a router manager (and might change the
  > technical implications as soon as classless routing will be deployed),
  > if someone realizes that [s]he's in fact seeing a supernetted network inste
  > ad
  > of a siongle class C.
  > Considering this, I would propose to have thos networks classes in the RIPE
  >  DB
  > as <net> <mask> pairs:
  > *in:
  > instead of 256 (ok, 254 :-) network entries.
  > The RIPE DB software has to be changed, of course. It would be clever, if
  > for the purpose of indexing the software explodes the <net>,<mask> pair
  > to all networks covered by this. All those index entries should point to
  > the supernetted object, of course.
  > By this, if such a network number comes along, I simply do a query as
  > for an ordinary class C, but get the supernetted as answer.
  > Opinions ?
  > 	Andreas Schachtner
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  > -----

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>