AW: [db-wg] Adding route objects
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Adding route objects
- Next message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Adding route objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Winfried Haug
wh at germany.com
Wed Apr 5 14:51:48 CEST 2006
Hello Marco, > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: db-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:db-wg-admin at ripe.net]Im Auftrag von > Marco d'Itri > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 14:25 > An: db-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [db-wg] Adding route objects > > > On Apr 05, Winfried Haug <wh at germany.com> wrote: > > > we would like to ask the db-wg working group to change the behavior of > > adding route objects to the ripe database. I had a discussion with > > someone from ripe during the routing registry course and he told me > > that ripe could change the way how route objects can be created but > > this must be decided by the db-wg. > I believe that this is a sensible proposal. > > I would even argue that the WG should consider allowing whoever controls > mnt-routes OR the referenced aut-num object to remove (not create) a > route/route6 object even if the request is not authenticated by both > maintainers. this would not help in our case and i assume many ISPs might have the same scenario. As long as ISP OLD is routing the block the old route-object is necessary. If ISP OLD doesnt WANT to add a mnt-routes, i have to send a fax. In order to minimize the down-time, we need an additional route-object for 1-2 days. My proposal would be: The ISP should be able to remove his route-object referring to his AS number. This is still working!. The maintainer referenced to the inetnum object should be able to create and delete the route-objects tied to his inetnum. What can happen ? Case 1: Inetnum-Maintainer deletes one of his route-objects -> bad for him, he might loose connectivity Case 2: Inetnum-Maintainer creates a route-object with a AS he has no connection to -> nothing critical or am i wrong ? But the unwanted object can be deleted by the AS maintainer directly or the inetnum maintainer. Case 3: Inetnum-Maintainer creats a route-object for his upstream -> perfect The current situation is not very nice for customers and causes additional work at the Ripe NCC. Addionally, it give the first owner of a route-object a power to deny further route objects. This doesnt make sense in my eyes. Winfried Headlight Housing Factory | Rechenzentrum: Azenbergstrasse 35 | Neue Bruecke 8 D-70174 Stuttgart | D-70173 Stuttgart Fon: +49 711 2840 0 | e-mail: wh at headlight.de Fax: +49 711 2840 999 | http://www.headlight.de
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Adding route objects
- Next message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Adding route objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]