AW: [db-wg] Call for agenda items, DB-WG Meeting during RIPE53, Amsterdam

Hello Winfried!

It is because you always can use YOUR mntner in route objects associated
 with your inetnums and avoid such kind of troubles.

Winfried Haug wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> we want you again to discuss the problem with the route-objects which
> need approval from the first owner of a route-object rather than
> from the owner of the inet object itself. 
> 
> As you didnt repsond to personal emails concerning this topic we want
> you to address this again. There are many good reasons, that a owner
> of the ip block should have the possibility to remove unwanted route
> objects or at least grant new routes objects to be added to the ripe 
> database.
> 
> I see NO reason why a a maintainer of the first route object should 
> have more power than the real owner of the ip space.
> 
> The might be situations where you need 2 route objects (changing
> upstream). If the owner of the first route object doensnt respond or
> is unwilling to help the ip-owner and/or the new isp you are lost.
> 
> We dont think that sending a fax to ripe will be a good solution for
> this design error in the ripe database. 
> 
> 
> Winfried Haug
> 
> 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  
> 


-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)