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