This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[db-wg] IRT object creation is easy
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] IRT object creation is easy
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] IRT object creation is easy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Wed Mar 17 19:29:09 CET 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christian Rasmussen [mailto:chr at jay.net] wrote: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Christian Rasmussen [mailto:chr at jay.net] wrote: > > > Im sure that creating an IRT object is doable for any ISP > > > which takes the time. The reason why I do not wish to use > > > IRT is that it is much too complex > > > for the very simple purpose it should have. It seems to have > > > been designed to be used for outsourcing of abuse-handling, > > > Im sure some ISP's do this but > > > I haven't yet seen any numbers which justifies a design which > > > primarily favors these ISP's. > > > > It is a seperate object, just like what the abuse-c is supposed > > to be, but indeed without the encryption. If you put one pgpkey > > in the RIPE registry you are done, and you should already be > > using signed messages to update your objects anyways. > > When creating a non-IRT object the encryption in the > maintainer is used.. > Why can't it be the same with IRT? You can stick the same keys in the IRT object as one puts into the MNT object, which is exactly what I did too. See IRT-SIXXS + SIXXS-MNT. <SNIP> > > Well currently, according to toolwriters, it has, as they will > > just use all the e-mail lines they can find. > > Now there is a good solution, not ;) > > Well, the easy solution would have been to just put a > mandatory abuse-email on the maintainer object, this would > force all inet(6)num's to instantly > have an abuse address - setting the notify address as default > or similiar will also encourage LIR's to change the abuse address to the > correct one. Which defeats the following situation: You are a LIR and thus have EXAMPLELIR-MNT. You have a client without a maintainer. You have your own abuse departement. Your clients have their own abuse department and you don't want to be bothered with it. You make an inet6num for your client from your block: (stripping many fields ;) inet6num: 2001:db8:1000::/40 netname: EXAMPLE-NET-FOR-BIG-CUSTOMER admin-c: EXAMPLE-CUST-RIPE tech-c: EXAMPLE-CUST-RIPE status: ASSIGNED mnt-by: EXAMPLE-MNT irt-by: IRT-CUSTOMER Et tada, the IRT is now set to your customers department and all this doesn't require a seperate maintainer. The IRT object also contains more information than just the abuse contact. > Of course this might be a bit too simplified, but I still > believe the most important is to have an abuse address associated with each IP > address in the Ripe DB as soon as possible. That is indeed very important and it can be accomplished _now_ using the IRT object. Try it ;) Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFiY9AAAgJ0AnRlAxa9SqodFTjvx0g+5beUn JJNqAKCUN+WHozVgKnqVawUco09EoydzIQ== =jbvY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] IRT object creation is easy
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] IRT object creation is easy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]