Hi,
getting back on this topic from quite a while ago, I just found it while having exactly this problem..
>On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:28:29AM +0200, Ihler, Hermann wrote:
>> if OLD-ISP updates his objects as follows it also will
>> work:
>
>But that's winfried's point: the old ISP need to actively enable
>creation of the new route object.
And/or it needs, as in my case, being able to actually do this in time. My favorite answer for today, waiting since Friday, is "This is an automated system, I cannot do this. I can only delete the object" (Which means in my basic understanding of IRR, if I don't create the new one in time, I'll be filtered by anybody doing best practice and use IRR..)
This makes me waiting this night for this magic change to happen sometime.. I somehow don't trust on what this change from an "automated system" being oparted by poeple that don't have the mntner theirselve (maybe for some good reason) will actually do..
So I'm with the inital suggestion: the mntner of the inetnum should be able to override/make changes to the route-object of his own network, regardless which mntner is sitting on it.
If there are good reasons against this, I'm happy to learn the these.
regards
Michael Markstaller
