Hi Sascha If there is an existing, exact matching ROUTE object the creation of the new ROUTE object must be authorised by the existing object. There is a flow chart here explaining the sequence of checks:https://www.ripe.net/support/training/material/bgp-operations-and-security-t... If you want to 'replace' the existing ROUTE object the maintainer of the less specific INETNUM allocation object can delete the existing ROUTE object using the authorisation of the allocation object. This is explained here:https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/managing-route-objects-i... cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG On Thursday, 11 June 2020, 01:31:36 CEST, Sascha E. Pollok via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: Dear friendly DB people, here is a problem I don't find easy to solve. Would you assist me in understanding the constraints? Customer has a /22 network 194.76.156.0/22 with the proper inetnum object. The inetnum objects has a mnt-by: IPHH-NOC and mnt-routes: IPHH-NOC. A route object exists but with a different maintainer: route: 194.76.156.0/22 descr: CMELCHERS-QSC-NET descr: via Plusnet origin: AS20676 mnt-by: PLUSNET-NOC <<<---- not IPHH-NOC We are now trying to create an additional route object for a different ASN: route: 194.76.156.0/22 descr: C. Melchers via MEKO-S origin: AS207630 mnt-by: IPHH-NOC <<<--- This is the maintainer in the inetnum object source: RIPE The RIPE DB refuses the update: Create FAILED: [route] 194.76.156.0/24AS207630 route: 194.76.156.0/24 descr: C. Melchers via MEKO-S descr: belongs to 194.76.156.0/22 origin: AS207630 mnt-by: IPHH-NOC source: RIPE ***Error: Authorisation for [route] 194.76.156.0/22AS20676 failed using "mnt-by:" not authenticated by: PLUSNET-NOC So the DB expects the maintainer from the other route object. But I don't understand why the mnt-routes in the inetnum-object doesnt give preference over the maintainer on a different route-object. Anyone who could share their honest opinion? Cheers Sascha