Hi, On 10/10/13 5:50 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> [2013-10-08 13:33]:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:00:28PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote:
Something else in mind: as before: allow abuse-c for inet*num. Prefer
This.
(But I've said this before :-) - I do not see it as a useful excercise having to create an organization: object for the sole purpose of being able to have a different abuse-c: for some inet(6)num object)
++++++1
I think that having the abuse-c role linked to the org object was a great idea. I also understand that some organisation may want to have different abuse contacts/roles defined for different IP blocks. One way on how this could be fixed, in my opinion, is by allowing an abuse-c role to be referenced in the inet*num object (but only if the inet*num object references an org that already has an abuse-c role referenced). In this case, the general abuse-c would be the one referenced in the org and the 'local' abuse-c would be the role referenced in the inet*num object. cheers, elvis