Hi Ronald The query option '--types' or '-T' refers to object types. The list you gave is the list of all object types. The 'netname' is an attribute in the INET(6)NUM object types. It is not, itself, an object type.
It is possible to search on netname using the full text search https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/fulltextsearch Choose 'Advanced Search' then select the object type (INETNUM or INET6NUM) then select the field 'netname'. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Sat, 29 May 2021 at 01:18, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message > <CAPfiqjaLRwCwbnwbHDk_DEodCdCkjLhZ03DgSy=raio6bzd...@mail.gmail.com>, > Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote > >Not only is uniqueness {of netnames} not required, the manual advises > >against it: > > I expressed myself badly. Let me try again. > > Yes, I understand that it is both customary and advisable for a given > organization > to label all of its address block allocations with a single common netname. > > That having been said, it seems to me that the value of having netnames exist > in the > data base AT ALL is rather entirely nullified by either or both of the > following two > factors, at present: > > (*) A given unique netname, once selected and used by some given > organisation, > may then be -reused-, ad infinitum, by other and entirely unrelated > organisations, to label *their* netblocks. (Example: "ABC" which > appears > to have been overloaded/reused by around a dozen different and > unrelated > organisations.) > > (*) It is not possible, at present, to perform selective WHOIS queries > for *just* > those inetnum/inet6num objects whose netname: fields exactly match > some given > specific netname. > > Because of the above two factors, I am not seeing any real usefulness of > netnames > within the data base AT ALL. > > On that basis, I would propose that either (a) RIPE should remove all > netnames from > the data base entirely (i.e. because they are clearly unnecessary > flotsam/jetsam) or > alternatively (b) RIPE should start supporting netnames properly. > > When I say "start supporting them properly" I mean of course (a) supporting > selective > searches for *just* netnames in the WHOIS server and also (b) creating a > system > whereby these symbolic names would be issued, by NCC in much the same > (exclusive) > way that NCC currently issues other types of guaranteed-unique data base > handles, > i.e. uniquely and exclusively, on on a per-organization basis. > > > Regards, > rfg >
