Dear Sascha (and Colleagues), The error message that you quote is for a /24 (more specific) route, not the /22 route that you say you're attempting to create. I hope that helps. Kind regards. Pierre. On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:32 AM 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