bonito@nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * Dear NCC people,
Hi Blasco,
Hi Tony!
* * I think that too strict sintax checking is applied in the case * of the dom-net database field. An example follows. * We are deploying technology to obsolete networks classes (A,B,C,...) * and at the same time the RIPE database checking rules do not take * into account the actual usage of dear old subnetworks? * Actually, the syntax is according to the document ripe-049 which sets out the definition for dom-net.
* In practice very often a number of subnetworks of a class B network are * used to host machines in a domain while other subnetworks are used * to host machines of a different domain. This is common for large * networks in a city. * Perhaps, but as far as I understand this was meant to be just a pointer to the networks possibly serviced as part of that domain. I would say the dom-net is not very useful anyway.
* We would like the checking rules to be relaxed in this case. * Could you please do that?
No Sorry - not unless the document is changed it'll stay as it is. As I said I would prefer to see dom-net phased out rather than preserving its life.
--Tony
I see your point, altough I do not agree... To bypass your sintax checker we will send our updates with the dom-net field converted to remarks... Cheers, Blasco