RE: Summary of the Migration issues

["Lu, Ping" <]

Some questions followed.

Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless Global
Network Tools and Analysis Group, USA
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu@localhost

[snip]
> ----------------------------------------
> 1. Route object creation (RFC2725 implications)
> 
> In order to create route object in the RIPE DB, one needs to have
> corresponding objects (inetnum or less specific route, and 
> aut-num) and
> pass proper authorization from these objects.
> 
> The problem occurs when someone needs to register route 
> object which has
> either prefix, or origin, or the both from non RIPE IP/ASN space.
> 
> Proposed solution:
> 1.1 An as-block object(s) encompassing the non RIPE ASN space will be
> created with "mnt-lower:" protected by mntner with NONE auth.
> 
> 1.2 An encompassing inetnum object with "mnt-routes:" protected by
> mntner with NONE auth will be created. This will eliminate need for
> corresponding inetnum creation and will reduce amount of redundant
> information.
> 
> 1.3 In case origin of a route object being created is from non RIPE
> space, users will need to create corresponding aut-num object in the
> RIPE DB.
>  

Does 1.3 means RIPE is going accept non-RIPE aut-num(AN) object thus a
mntner(MT)
object to protect that AN thus some person(PN) objects associated with that
MT ?

And is RIPE going to allow the NONE auth specified in 1.1 and 1.2 to be
changed
to a real MT once the rightful holder created them ?


> 
> 2. Updates in RIPE-181 format
> 

How about the ftp mirror ? Will RIPE-181 format text files still be
available to download
after April 23, 2001 or just the RPSL format text files ?

[big cut for the rest]