Hi, On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:51:15AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:37:37AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Shane, your explanation is confusing me. There are other examples with "same route, different origin AS" in the RIPE-DB (check 194.97.0.0/16), which is sometimes necessary while migrating a network to a new origin AS.
Yes, and this needs authorization from both ASN maintainers.
Why? If you have authoritation from the owner of the inetnum:, that should be sufficient. [..]
So the database should permit entry of this *new* object, instead of checking for modification permission on the *existing* object. No. Because that allows hijacking under some circumstances.
No. The inetnum:/mnt-routes: check prevent hijacking (if the inetnum: is in the same database - if not, the check on the route: object doesn't prevent putting a competing route: object into some other IRR DB). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48282 (47686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299