On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 11:42:12AM +0200, Alex Band wrote:
Thanks for sharing your experiences George.
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.
It would simplify the authorisation model tremendously and save a lot of frustration and customer support tickets.
Seeing that APNIC has positive experiences, would our Community support such an approach considering the up and downsides?
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. Kind regards, Job