AW: [db-wg] Adding route objects

Fredrik Widell wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 05, Winfried Haug <wh at germany.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, I understand this and I support your proposal.
>> What I am proposing is an additional change to solve the second part of
>> the problem (how to remove old route objects when the old ISP is not
>> cooperating).
>  
> Well, if the maintainer of the inetnum, and the maintainer of the
> origin-as for the to-be-registered-route-object agree and can send
> a pgp-signed, or whatever auth they use, object to ripedb, it should be
> registered, either with a warning stating there already
> exists a route-object, (which actually would be better for customers
> that are changing isp's since the filters for their coming global
> transit would work directly), or that the existing route-object
> simply is removed and the new one installed,
> 
> I would prefer to be able to have multiple route-objects
> (as was possible earlier in ripedb), and to manually clean
> the database when customers sucessfully have changed global
> transit.

I am in complete agreement with this.
I've wasted a lot of time in the past with this exact issue.
I do not believe the old route object should be deleted via this
mechanism though - that should be cleaned via the existing mechanisms.
--
Ian Dickinson
Development Engineer
PIPEX
ian.dickinson at pipex.net
http://www.pipex.net

This e-mail is subject to: http://www.pipex.net/disclaimer.html