Fredrik Widell wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 05, Winfried Haug <wh@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@pipex.net http://www.pipex.net This e-mail is subject to: http://www.pipex.net/disclaimer.html