Hi Lutz
There is no requirement for a source on a MNTNER name. So in your example the
MNTNER could simply be NCC-MNT.
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
On Thursday, 1 October 2020, 08:53:56 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg
<[email protected]> wrote:
So the general scheme is SOURCE-NAME-FUNCTION, i.e. RIPE-NCC-MNT ?
Von: db-wg <[email protected]>Im Auftrag von William Sylvester via db-wg
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 21:44
An: [email protected]
Betreff: [db-wg] MNTNER Naming : Consensus
db-wg members,
The chairs of the database working group believe there is a consensus to have a
standardised name format for creating new MNTNER objects. There was talk of a
prefix (MNT-) or a suffix (-MNT). When creating a new standard it doesn't
really make sense to introduce a standard with multiple formats. As there are
currently 36347 MNTNERs that end with -MNT and 12480 MNTNERs that start with
MNT-, we suggest that the standard should be to end with -MNT.
We ask the RIPE NCC to take the next steps in moving this request forward,
conducting an impact analysis, and proceed with implementation.
Best regards.
William & denis
db-wg chairs
