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): AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting
Next message (by thread): AW: AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Andrei Robachevsky andrei at ripe.net
Fri Apr 28 11:50:25 CEST 2006

Hi Winfried,

Winfried Haug wrote:
[...]

> 
> Do you really want people to send faxes to ripe for route object removal?
> This is a stupid idea
> and doesnt scale.
>

Indeed. But I guess the problem in your case was that you had to obtain
authorisation from a holder of the old route object.

In this case I don't see why can't it be the customer (you as I
understand) who maintains (i.e. mnt-by: CUSTOMER-MNT) PI inetnum and all
route objects that represent this address space? That will allow you to
have as many route objects as necessary and also have full control over
deletion

Regards,

Andrei Robachevsky

Previous message (by thread): AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting
Next message (by thread): AW: AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]