On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 11:42:12AM +0200, Alex Band wrote:
I'm curious to hear from our Community about what they think about this mode of operation; simply create the route object on the inetnum holder's authorisation alone, inform the ASN holder that it was created and only remove the object if they object.
I support this direction and style of operation. The philosophy that an inetnum holder can unilaterally grant the right to announce a prefix to any ASN makes sense to me, probably is more intuitive to most.
folk seem to be gliding over the last clause in alex's paragraph. are you agreeing with it? i think i am inclined to agree, given the use of peval(as-set:) to get the transitive closure of a peer's prefixes. but it makes me wonder about my use of as-set:s. randy