NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context
Dear Working Group, (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) NWI-4 --------- The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP70.2 [RIPE NCC] Come up with a proposal for the status: field to fix the requirement that certain objects may need multivalued status. Some believe that the main underlying issue here is that it is currently not possible to create an assignment that is the same size as an allocation in the RIPE Database. And resource holders are of course supposed to create an assignment for the address space in an allocation that is in use, by address policy. The main reason for this limitation is that the INET(6)NUM attribute is a primary key. There is a work-around for this problem. Instead of creating an assignment of the same size it's possible to create two smaller assignments instead. In our (red: RIPE NCC) experience this work-around has always been accepted. Still if the allocation is used as a whole, having a single assignment for the whole block is a more accurate reflection of reality, and it reduces the amount of objects to maintain. ---------- The AP70.2 action point refers to a suggest solution, following earlier discussion. But the chairs believe it would be good to bring this back to a clear problem statement first, and then suggest different solutions and their respective benefits and/or problems. Furthermore address-policy wg policies mention the different statuses and what the different statusses reflect. Therefore we'll need to inform the address policy working group as well. If you agree or disagree with this problem statement, please indicate your opinion on this mailinglist. Refinements to the text are welcome too. Kind regards, Job
Hi Job This is another excellent example of how the data model could be improved. Currently we are constrained by this issue of the address range being the primary key that cannot be duplicated. What we see here is the need for an address range to be stored internally as both an allocation and an assignment. Then depending on the query the 'information' returned either shows the allocation data or the assignment data rather than the 'raw' data held in the database. cheersdenis From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> To: db-wg@ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 15:20 Subject: [db-wg] NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context Dear Working Group, (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) NWI-4 --------- The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP70.2 [RIPE NCC] Come up with a proposal for the status: field to fix the requirement that certain objects may need multivalued status. Some believe that the main underlying issue here is that it is currently not possible to create an assignment that is the same size as an allocation in the RIPE Database. And resource holders are of course supposed to create an assignment for the address space in an allocation that is in use, by address policy. The main reason for this limitation is that the INET(6)NUM attribute is a primary key. There is a work-around for this problem. Instead of creating an assignment of the same size it's possible to create two smaller assignments instead. In our (red: RIPE NCC) experience this work-around has always been accepted. Still if the allocation is used as a whole, having a single assignment for the whole block is a more accurate reflection of reality, and it reduces the amount of objects to maintain. ---------- The AP70.2 action point refers to a suggest solution, following earlier discussion. But the chairs believe it would be good to bring this back to a clear problem statement first, and then suggest different solutions and their respective benefits and/or problems. Furthermore address-policy wg policies mention the different statuses and what the different statusses reflect. Therefore we'll need to inform the address policy working group as well. If you agree or disagree with this problem statement, please indicate your opinion on this mailinglist. Refinements to the text are welcome too. Kind regards, Job
Hi Job Again for clarification, I was jumping the gun a bit talking about possible solutions. I agree with the problem statement as put forward. cheersdenis From: "ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk" <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>; "db-wg@ripe.net" <db-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 15:40 Subject: Re: [db-wg] NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context Hi Job This is another excellent example of how the data model could be improved. Currently we are constrained by this issue of the address range being the primary key that cannot be duplicated. What we see here is the need for an address range to be stored internally as both an allocation and an assignment. Then depending on the query the 'information' returned either shows the allocation data or the assignment data rather than the 'raw' data held in the database. cheersdenis From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> To: db-wg@ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 15:20 Subject: [db-wg] NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context Dear Working Group, (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) NWI-4 --------- The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP70.2 [RIPE NCC] Come up with a proposal for the status: field to fix the requirement that certain objects may need multivalued status. Some believe that the main underlying issue here is that it is currently not possible to create an assignment that is the same size as an allocation in the RIPE Database. And resource holders are of course supposed to create an assignment for the address space in an allocation that is in use, by address policy. The main reason for this limitation is that the INET(6)NUM attribute is a primary key. There is a work-around for this problem. Instead of creating an assignment of the same size it's possible to create two smaller assignments instead. In our (red: RIPE NCC) experience this work-around has always been accepted. Still if the allocation is used as a whole, having a single assignment for the whole block is a more accurate reflection of reality, and it reduces the amount of objects to maintain. ---------- The AP70.2 action point refers to a suggest solution, following earlier discussion. But the chairs believe it would be good to bring this back to a clear problem statement first, and then suggest different solutions and their respective benefits and/or problems. Furthermore address-policy wg policies mention the different statuses and what the different statusses reflect. Therefore we'll need to inform the address policy working group as well. If you agree or disagree with this problem statement, please indicate your opinion on this mailinglist. Refinements to the text are welcome too. Kind regards, Job
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:20:18PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
Dear Working Group,
(You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.)
NWI-4 --------- The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP70.2 [RIPE NCC] Come up with a proposal for the status: field to fix the requirement that certain objects may need multivalued status.
Some believe that the main underlying issue here is that it is currently not possible to create an assignment that is the same size as an allocation in the RIPE Database. And resource holders are of course supposed to create an assignment for the address space in an allocation that is in use, by address policy.
The main reason for this limitation is that the INET(6)NUM attribute is a primary key. There is a work-around for this problem. Instead of creating an assignment of the same size it's possible to create two smaller assignments instead. In our (red: RIPE NCC) experience this work-around has always been accepted.
Still if the allocation is used as a whole, having a single assignment for the whole block is a more accurate reflection of reality, and it reduces the amount of objects to maintain. ----------
The AP70.2 action point refers to a suggest solution, following earlier discussion. But the chairs believe it would be good to bring this back to a clear problem statement first, and then suggest different solutions and their respective benefits and/or problems.
Furthermore address-policy wg policies mention the different statuses and what the different statusses reflect. Therefore we'll need to inform the address policy working group as well.
If you agree or disagree with this problem statement, please indicate your opinion on this mailinglist. Refinements to the text are welcome too.
I agree with the problem statement. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
participants (3)
-
Job Snijders -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk