On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:25:27AM -0700, cengiz@isi.edu wrote:
jhsu@rathe.mur.com (jhsu@rathe.mur.com) on June 21:
problems:
a. the independant registries generally store a local copy of the other registries for config use. this was fine when there were a few [like ripe, mci, ans] but not so fine when N grows unbounded. co-ordination could very quickly become a nightmare.
This problem is actually solved. Please see RFC 2769. There is one implementation of this already, in ISI's BIRD server. IRRd folks, the defacto routing registry server, are also working to implement this as well. I heard rumors that RIPE will also implement this spec.
But they are reinventing the wheel. Why not use the preexisting functionality built in to the rwhois or dns protocols? The querying mechanism for the IRRd is not RFC documented and returns 'F' when errors occur. The source code is by and large sparsely documented, and in the case of the RAToolSet, it won't compile cleanly on most platforms.
The protocol lets you auto discover new registries, and of course you can choose what to do with the newly discovered registries. For example, you can establish a registry exchange peering with radb, and set auto discover, and each time radb or recursively some one they exchange with starts peering with a new repository, you can start receiving their data as well.
But I don't _want_ everyone's data crammed in my database. I want a referral from a central database that points me to one of several locations for authoritative data. Do I want to cache that data? Maybe. Maybe not. It would not be (as) difficult to define an rwhois schema that has the desired functionality plus a protocol extension or two to account for any extended behavior, such as caching. Please don't take this as bashing on the authors of the aforementioned tools. I realize that they have been working hard and diligently. Austin