Agreed, it would not be very flexible if the LIR's were not allowed to sell the service of maintaining customers PI net registrations, thats definitely a disadvantage. But that doesn't change the fact that some LIRs have problems getting the previous LIR to properly update the objects of a former customer. The reason for this problem could be ethical related as previously suggested - but it could also simply be that the previous LIR can/will not allocate the necessary ressources for the update task within the given timeframe. But as I understand the LIR is obligated to perform the necessary update at some point in order to have the objects correctly registered. It would be preferable if the end user somehow had authority over the inetnum object, but I understand that a solution with the end user as mandatory maintainer might be a disadvantage to the majority of the LIRs.
-----Original Message----- From: lir-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Marcus.Ruchti@colt.de Sent: 23. maj 2003 10:28 To: md@ncuk.net; woeber@cc.univie.ac.at Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: AW: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update
that's true, I've made the same experiences. Mostly we request an own maintainer for a customer when we request a new PI network, but the majority of the users hasn't the knowledge or they don't want to build up knowledge to create or to update the RIPE database...
Marcus
Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc@jay.net Personal email: chr@corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net