[Ietf-not43] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-crisp-internet-resource-number-req-00.txt

[Shane Kerr]

David Blacka wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 04:09 am, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 
> 
>>But maybe that's not what you mean.  Is the problem specifying the 
>>range and doing a search rather than a simple lookup?  The address 
>>space is not the same as the domain space.  We actually need to be 
>>able to have the semantics that I described in terms of looking for 
>>parent/child relationships and having abritrary values for searches.
> 
> 
> Shane, how important is it that *all* of those searches are done with 
> arbitrary ranges?  In particular, I am wondering if the "-m" query, for 
> instance, could be started with a known network block (identified by 
> handle, for instance) instead of an arbitrary range?  It occurs to me that 
> if "-m" where queries by network block handle, implementations could 
> pre-calculate the results.

These don't always match.  For instance, if I want to find all of the 
allocations from 210.0.0.0/7 I would probably have to do a search for 
210.0.0.0/8 and 211.0.0.0/8 if those were the entries in the database. 
It's not *strictly* necessary, but we don't really have performance 
problems so I'd prefer not to limit the protocol unnecessarily.

> A followup question might be: would it be useful for any of the IP searches 
> to start with a network block identifier, in addition?

That's possibly useful.  Unfortunately we don't have (unique) identifiers 
for network blocks except for the start/end IP.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC