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]/
AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting
- Next message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Winfried Haug
wh at germany.com
Fri Apr 28 11:02:29 CEST 2006
Hello Titley, i am a little bit surprised about the wording concerning route objects in the ripe database: F. Modify checks for creation of route: (input from Routing-WG) The checks at the moment are fully compliant with the RFCs so we should perhaps change the RFCs. It was suggested that maybe we should be looking at the model proposed for the PKI to allow the overall holder of a block of address space to allow objects to be created, but that the onus finally rests on the holder of the AS number object. It was agreed to do nothing and wait for the PKI model to be more fully developed. Is i started this discussion i got a lot of feedback and as i remember at least the owner of the inet-object should be able to delete unwanted route-objects. I got no argument against this proposal. There were diffrent views of the question who should be able to create such an object but not about the fact the the inet-object owner should be able to delete such objects. The current situation gives an owner of an as with a route-object more power than the owner of this inet-object itself. It can also prevent to add a NEW route object. If you have a large block you can add a route object for a more specific network as a workaround. This leads to more routes announced to the routing table than necessary. But you are lost with a /24 as many dont accept /25 announcements. Even the idea to wait for the pki model doesnt change anything. For the removal of an route object i need a response from the holder of the AS object. What happens if he doensnt respond ? -> even the new PKI model doesnt help the inte-object owner and will not change the situation. Do you really want people to send faxes to ripe for route object removal? This is a stupid idea and doesnt scale. We had and have issues with that and sometimes -especially in large companies- it can take days, weeks or months until somebody responds. I would like to hear some technical reasons why we cant change the current situation. I dont see them :-( Winfried --- Headlight Housing Factory | Rechenzentrum: Azenbergstrasse 35 | Neue Bruecke 8 D-70174 Stuttgart | D-70173 Stuttgart Fon: +49 711 2840 0 | e-mail: wh at headlight.de Fax: +49 711 2840 999 | http://www.headlight.de
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting
- Next message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]