RE: Sorry -- Re: Merging RRP and Whois

["Lu, Ping" <plu@cw.net>]

As you mentioned the NIC-HANDLE problem is a global one.

There is no question that NIC-HANDLE should be unique inside each Registry's
database.

But what happen if you want to peer with other ISPs who is registered all
over the world ?

Either you REFERENCE their objects from all the RIRs (ARIN, RIPE, APNIC ...)
or you ask them to replicate their objects in your own Registry.
The former will require the NIC-HANDLE to be global unique, the later will
need all ISPs to maintain a seperate set of objects for each IR.

Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless USA
Network Tools and Analysis Group
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu@cw.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheer El-Showk [mailto:sheer@laudanum.saraf.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 8:55 AM
> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; ietf-whois@imc.org
> Subject: Sorry -- Re: Merging RRP and Whois
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry about the two double postings.  I was using a 
> non-subscribed email
> address and the postings didn't go through so I reposted ... 
> I didn't know
> they'de just be delayed.
> 
> Sheer
> 
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Sheer El-Showk wrote:
> 
> > > Now, having lambasted the idea of lumping whois into 
> provreg, I've a goofy
> > > idea.  Can PROVREG recommend a scalable solution to the 
> consideration of
> > > NIC-HANDLES? To my knowledge, this has never been 
> addressed properly, at 
> > > least since the days when the IR was split. When we did 
> the RA project, the
> > > thought was to tag the NIC-HANDLE with the registrars 
> "stamp", e.g.
> > > 
> > > 	WM110-NSI
> > > 	WM110-RIPE
> > > 	WM110-ARIN
> > > 
> > > but this leads, as friend Bush commented at the RIPE-37 
> mtg, to inconsistancies
> > > between registration agents. IN a nutshell, do we need 
> globally unique IDs 
> > > to the registering agents?  If so, who administers that ID space?
> > 
> > Why would we want global NIC handles?  Transfers?  
> Data-consistency?  Making 
> > life easier for the registrant?
> > 
> > None of these seem sufficiently important to merit the kind 
> of effort
> > (either bureacratic -- if its one big NIC Handle registry; 
> or technical --
> > if the registries used a shared/synced NIC Handle DB).  
> Especially because
> > registries may not want to share their NIC handles for 
> various privacy or
> > reasons.
> > 
> > That having been said, what I like about an idea like this 
> is it would
> > make it simpler to determine who is authoritative owner of 
> a domain - an
> > issue I think we should really consider since it seems to 
> be done mostly
> > by "out-of-band" methods (email's sent by the registry -- at least
> > Verisign -- to determine the domain owner) -- which I agree should 
> > be eliminated.  Still I think a focus on digitally 
> certifying a domain is
> > the right way to go, rather than centralizing user information.
> > 
> > Sheer
> > 
> > 
>