Summary of the Migration issues

Dear Colleagues,

On 19-Mar-2001 Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
 > 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.

* Means that, all non RIPE IP/ASN space is available on 23 of April as default 
  or should we send an request if needed ?

* Should we still use the human mail interface for "aut-num" and "mntner"
  creations on 23 of April ?

* Can we assume that the database on 23 of April is the same like the current 
  RPSL mirror ?

many thanks
Frank


-- 
Frank Bohnsack                       email  fb at de.uu.net
UUNET, A Worldcom Company            phone  +49 (0)231 972-1495
EMEA Access & Backbone Networks      fax    +49 (0)231 972-1188
Team Dortmund                        web    www.de.uu.net