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 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sebastien Lahtinen [mailto:md@ncuk.net] Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2003 15:20 An: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Betreff: RE: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update On Thu, 22 May 2003, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
but if it was not an option for the LIR to be maintainer of the customers PI assignment (end user mandatory maintainer) it would solve the problem.
2 problems here:
- the LIR has to "donate" its resources to apply for the PI block with the NCC. So there may be a reason (in some cases) for protecting the object with the LIR's maintainer;
- in our case (for customers with legacy addresses) we have an agreement in place to jointly manage and protect the inetnum objects. Some may even choose to have us do that as a service. For that reason, blocking this would be undesirable from my point of view.
I couldn't agree more. We've done PI for clients on their own maintainer if that's what they want, but creating extra maintainers "for the sake of it" seems pointless because half the PI users may not understand how to use their maintainer anyway! Sebastien. --- NetConnex Broadband Ltd. tel. +44 870 745 4830 fax. +44 870 745 4831 Court Farm Lodge, 1 Eastway, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8SG. United Kingdom.
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
participants (2)
-
Christian Rasmussen -
Marcus.Ruchti＠colt.de