Hi, I've reviewed Ed's impact analysis for NWI-4 and his proposal to add a new status value "ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA". This will not cover all use cases and it's use will most likely be limited as most people are used to the "ALLOCATED PA" versus "ASSIGNED PA" status values. I would highly prefer the earlier alternative proposal to use a tuple (using both prefix and status) so no new status value is introduced to the RIPE database. Can this be moved forward? Regards, Wessel Sandkuijl
Hello Wessel, Many thanks for your feedback. I agree there are drawbacks to using a combined status value. If there is consensus on using a tuple (similar to what we already do for route(6)) then the DB team will implement this. I also plan to mention NWI-4 during the DB-WG session tomorrow, any feedback is appreciated. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
On 24 May 2023, at 08:52, Wessel Sandkuijl via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
I've reviewed Ed's impact analysis for NWI-4 and his proposal to add a new status value "ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA". This will not cover all use cases and it's use will most likely be limited as most people are used to the "ALLOCATED PA" versus "ASSIGNED PA" status values.
I would highly prefer the earlier alternative proposal to use a tuple (using both prefix and status) so no new status value is introduced to the RIPE database.
Can this be moved forward?
Regards,
Wessel Sandkuijl
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
Colleagues On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 08:52, Wessel Sandkuijl via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
I've reviewed Ed's impact analysis for NWI-4 and his proposal to add a new status value "ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA". This will not cover all use cases and it's use will most likely be limited as most people are used to the "ALLOCATED PA" versus "ASSIGNED PA" status values.
I would highly prefer the earlier alternative proposal to use a tuple (using both prefix and status) so no new status value is introduced to the RIPE database.
As Wessel pointed out this was one of the earlier proposals and it did have some support at the time. It is technically more challenging and has implications on queries and query data output. How do you feel about such a change? cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
Can this be moved forward?
Regards,
Wessel Sandkuijl
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
I think I still support this proposal if it would be realistic to implement without breaking too many things. Like what would the impact on RDAP be for example? I guess what I am saying is that I want to see a proper impact analysis before I can decide if I support it or not. -Cynthia On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 8:01 PM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Colleagues
On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 08:52, Wessel Sandkuijl via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
I've reviewed Ed's impact analysis for NWI-4 and his proposal to add a new status value "ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA". This will not cover all use cases and it's use will most likely be limited as most people are used to the "ALLOCATED PA" versus "ASSIGNED PA" status values.
I would highly prefer the earlier alternative proposal to use a tuple (using both prefix and status) so no new status value is introduced to the RIPE database.
As Wessel pointed out this was one of the earlier proposals and it did have some support at the time. It is technically more challenging and has implications on queries and query data output. How do you feel about such a change?
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
Can this be moved forward?
Regards,
Wessel Sandkuijl
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
Hi Cynthia,
On 20 Jul 2023, at 00:32, Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
I think I still support this proposal if it would be realistic to implement without breaking too many things. Like what would the impact on RDAP be for example? I guess what I am saying is that I want to see a proper impact analysis before I can decide if I support it or not.
-Cynthia
I'm working on an impact analysis for the tuple proposal (including RDAP and other RIPE NCC services), and hope to have it ready in the coming weeks. Requiring a tuple to distinguish between multiple inetnums with the same prefix but different status (ALLOCATED PA or ASSIGNED PA) *will* be a breaking change but will satisfy the NWI-2 problem statement: "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" https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-May/005242.html Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
participants (4)
-
Cynthia Revström -
denis walker -
Edward Shryane -
Wessel Sandkuijl