Problems with route object update
Hi all, I've recognized that we have massive problems in the last weeks with RIPE database updates by other ISP's. e.g. a new customer wants that we will announce a PI network used by him but it is maintained by another LIR. I've asked for creating a route object with our maintainer several times without success. I think all this happens with intention to constrain the business activity of the competitor ! Is there a possibility to insert the RIPE-NONE Maintainer in the whole PI blocks (e.g. /16). In this step I won't mention the names of those ISP's... regards, Marcus Ruchti COLT Telecom GmbH
Hi Marcus, We have had the same situation a few times. The problem seems to be that "Provider Independent" IP addresses are not at all provider independent since the LIR is usually the maintainer of the inetnum object, so the customer will not be able to take the PI net to another LIR unless the previous LIR agrees to release the object. A solution could be to make the customer maintainer of the inetnum, that way the customer could simply add the new LIR's maintainer to MNT-ROUTES. 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
-----Original Message----- From: lir-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Marcus.Ruchti@colt.de Sent: 21. maj 2003 15:17 To: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update
Hi all,
I've recognized that we have massive problems in the last weeks with RIPE database updates by other ISP's.
e.g. a new customer wants that we will announce a PI network used by him but it is maintained by another LIR.
I've asked for creating a route object with our maintainer several times without success.
I think all this happens with intention to constrain the business activity of the competitor !
Is there a possibility to insert the RIPE-NONE Maintainer in the whole PI blocks (e.g. /16).
In this step I won't mention the names of those ISP's...
regards,
Marcus Ruchti COLT Telecom GmbH
Hi Christian, Christian Rasmussen <chr@jay.net> writes:
Hi Marcus,
We have had the same situation a few times. The problem seems to be that "Provider Independent" IP addresses are not at all provider independent since the LIR is usually the maintainer of the inetnum object, so the customer will not be able to take the PI net to another LIR unless the previous LIR agrees to release the object.
A solution could be to make the customer maintainer of the inetnum, that way the customer could simply add the new LIR's maintainer to MNT-ROUTES.
We recommend that End Users maintain their PI inetnum themselves if they want to do so. However, they are free to have their provider maintain it for them if they want that, instead. If a maintainer is unable to update the object for the End User then please contact the RIPE NCC and we will try to help. Also, it is worth noting that where two maintainers need to agree to the creation of a route object then both authentications can be passed to the database in the same e-mail. We have a graphical representation of the authentication rules at this page: <http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/route-creation-checks.html> Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
Hi Leo,
We have had the same situation a few times. The problem seems to be that "Provider Independent" IP addresses are not at all provider independent since the LIR is usually the maintainer of the inetnum object, so the customer will not be able to take the PI net to another LIR unless the previous LIR agrees to release the object.
A solution could be to make the customer maintainer of the inetnum, that way the customer could simply add the new LIR's maintainer to MNT-ROUTES.
We recommend that End Users maintain their PI inetnum themselves if they want to do so. However, they are free to have their provider maintain it for them if they want that, instead.
Yes, I understand, the problem is if the LIR decides not to inform the customer of this option, 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.
If a maintainer is unable to update the object for the End User then please contact the RIPE NCC and we will try to help.
As I understand its not normal procedure for Ripe NCC to contact end users, so Ripe NCC would have to determine which of the LIRs the customer had chosen by speaking to each of the competitors (LIRs). Instead it would be much easier if it was always the customer who was maintainer of the inetnum object.
Also, it is worth noting that where two maintainers need to agree to the creation of a route object then both authentications can be passed to the database in the same e-mail. We have a graphical representation of the authentication rules at this page:
Yes, the representation is actually quite nice, but the issue is not technically how to create the route object. 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
Hi Christian, Christian Rasmussen <chr@jay.net> writes: [...]
If a maintainer is unable to update the object for the End User then please contact the RIPE NCC and we will try to help.
As I understand its not normal procedure for Ripe NCC to contact end users, so Ripe NCC would have to determine which of the LIRs the customer had chosen by speaking to each of the competitors (LIRs). Instead it would be much easier if it was always the customer who was maintainer of the inetnum object.
There are some advantages to this. However, there are also disadvantages. End Users may well have a steep learning curve with regard to their maintainer. They may not use it frequently, and consequently lose the password or PGP key associated with it. This would then require them to contact the RIPE NCC to regain control of the maintainer. Nonetheless, End Users that want to maintain their own inetnum objects may do so if they so wish. The RIPE NCC will create a maintainer for them, if they request it, when the address space is assigned. They can also request a maintainer at a later date, if they want. Best regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
participants (3)
-
Christian Rasmussen -
leo vegoda -
Marcus.Ruchti＠colt.de