AW: AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting

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

correct and he is very very slow -> delay of provider change.

> 
> 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

Customer has a maintainer of his inet object but even with that he cant
delete an existing route object for the network because the route object
is maintained by the AS owner. There are many PI networks given but
routed by another upstream. In this case the route object is maintained by
the AS owner and only he can delete or alter this object.

Without the AS owner the inetnum object user is lost and needs assistance
from ripe. I doubt that we should force people to query ripe or send faxes
to ripe.

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