[ppml] Directory Services - Take 2

[Andrew Newton]

On Jun 13, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>>> I'm suggesting that ARIN map it's existing backend database into
>>> an LDAP schema
>>>
>>
>> This is much easier said than done.  By its very nature of being
>> rooted in X.500 DAP and the X.500 tree structure, LDAP imposes a
>> hierarchical tree structure on any data model.  Trying to take a
>> highly relational data set and putting into a tree causes many nodes
>> to be replicated (leading to bloat due to multiple copies of the same
>> data).
>>
>
> This may be so, but we don't have this problem. IP address
> allocation inherently follows a hierarchical model so the
> problem of bloat arises when you try to cram it into a flat
> relational model.

First, there are more objects in the ARIN database than just IP  
addresses.  Things like contacts and organizations with multiple  
relationships make for a relational model.  Second, IP addresses  
present a particular issue.  Do you base the DIT on an IP classful  
hierarchy? Doing it on bit boundaries leads to DNs longer than my arm  
for v4... what about v6?  What about assignments with the same  
starting and/or ending address?  If IP addresses are opaque to the  
DIT, that means you aren't using the DIT which begs the question of  
why you are using LDAP.  This problem is far more complex than you  
are painting it.

On Jun 13, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>> If you think that an XML presentation format would work with
>> an LDAP approach, I'd suggest documenting this and presenting
>> it for review of the CRISP WG.
>>
>
> I'm not interested in the views of the CRISP WG.

Why?  Both the IRIS and FIRS proposals took into consideration IP  
address registries from day one.

-andy