<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp6e00c483yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I have no idea Job. It has been like this for as long as I can remember, maybe at least the last 20 years since we implemented the RPSL version of the RIPE Database.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Tom gave some reasons for it in his reply. The database mechanics simply reflect the policies and practices. There are different options:</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">-error, as it is now</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">-warning that another ROUTE object exists</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">-send notification to existing ROUTE ASN holder</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">-allow creation and do nothing</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">-???</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">If there is strong feeling that something should be changed or looked at again, maybe you should start a discussion on the best options for these situations on the Routing WG mailing list. The impact of any change is a routing issue. Then come back to DB WG if something needs changing.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">cheers</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">denis</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">co-chair DB-WG</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpa0bd975dyahoo_quoted_2104662265" class="ydpa0bd975dyahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Thursday, 11 June 2020, 15:30:46 CEST, Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>On 11/06/2020 03:26, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote:<br clear="none">> If there is an existing, exact matching ROUTE object the creation of the<br clear="none">> new ROUTE object must be authorised by the existing object. There is a<br clear="none">> flow chart here explaining the sequence of checks:<br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" href="https://www.ripe.net/support/training/material/bgp-operations-and-security-training-course/route-object-creation-flowchart.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/support/training/material/bgp-operations-and-security-training-course/route-object-creation-flowchart.pdf</a><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Ah - great pointer. thanks.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Denis, do you remember *why* that is the rule?<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I don't see a lot of benefit to requiring the existing object to<br clear="none">authorise the creation of a *new* object, when the new object is<br clear="none">authorised by the inetnum (in this case both through mnt-routes: and<br clear="none">mnt-by:).<div class="ydpa0bd975dyqt6546051709" id="ydpa0bd975dyqtfd41490"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">>> ***Error: Authorisation for [route] 194.76.156.0/22AS20676 failed<br clear="none">>> using "mnt-by:" not authenticated by: PLUSNET-NOC<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Could we reduce the confusion, and/or spread some more clue, by being<br clear="none">> more specific with this error? e.g.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Authorisation for [blah] failed using "mnt-by:"<br clear="none">> - matching route object already exists<br clear="none">> - not authenticated by: PLUSNET-NOC</div><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Perhaps instead of an error message, the operation that Sasha tried to<br clear="none">do should just be allowed?<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Kind regards,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Job<div class="ydpa0bd975dyqt6546051709" id="ydpa0bd975dyqtfd30606"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>