Hierarchical authorisation failed, request forwarded to maintaine r ???

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:51:15AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:37:37AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Shane, your explanation is confusing me.  There are other examples with
> > "same route, different origin AS" in the RIPE-DB (check 194.97.0.0/16),
> > which is sometimes necessary while migrating a network to a new origin
> > AS.  
> 
> Yes, and this needs authorization from both ASN maintainers. 

Why?  If you have authoritation from the owner of the inetnum:, that
should be sufficient.

[..]
> > So the database should permit entry of this *new* object, instead of
> > checking for modification permission on the *existing* object.
> No. Because that allows hijacking under some circumstances.

No.  The inetnum:/mnt-routes: check prevent hijacking (if the inetnum: is
in the same database - if not, the check on the route: object doesn't
prevent putting a competing route: object into some other IRR DB).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  48282  (47686)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299