more authority for mnt-lower in the allocation objects

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Koepp, Karsten wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> I fully support Tanja's and Arnd's proposal.
> Several people (myself as well) had already requested some improvements
> on the mnt-routes problem, because it is a frequent problem for network
> operators.

agree

>
> The proposed change should be very easy for inetnums with existing
> mnt-lower object, such a change was already done to include mnt-routes.
> But I imagine manual updates would be necessary for inet-nums with
> "mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT".
>

why ? do you think NCC couldn't allow updating allocations by
adding LIR's maintainer ? in case of problems with billing NCC will
simply remove (or comment) LIR's mnt-by,
and probably mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT could get status of mandatory,unchagable
attribute for allocation inetnum objects.


> Dear hostmasters, can we see figures on how many allocation objects exist
> of either sort?
>
> Regards
> Karsten Koepp
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arnd Vehling [mailto:av at nethead.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:11 PM
> > To: Tanja Heimes
> > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net
> > Subject: Re: more authority for mnt-lower in the allocation objects
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Tanja Heimes wrote:
> > [..]
> > > This is my opinion:
> > > Yes, it makes sence that RIPE NCC is the maintainer of a LIRs
> > > allocation.
> > > But in my opinion it makes NO sence that Cable and Wireles (and all
> > > other LIRs) as mnt-lower
> > > do not have the authority to change their own administrative and
> > > technical contacts in the allocation.
> >
> > IMO this is correct. The LIR should be able to modify this information
> > without needing to write to hostmaster at ripe.net (which may take some
> > time depending on how busy the hostmaster team is).
> >
> > admin-c, tech-c, mnt-lower and mnt-routes within an
> > allocation should be
> > changeable by the LIR itself.
> >
> > I know this is difficult to accomplish while "mnt-by:" points to
> > an ripe-maintainer. But as far as i know RIPE has a second database
> > where all allocations are stored for cross-checlking.
> > Therefore we could
> > take an approach where the allocation may only be created by RIPE but
> > may be updated by the according LIR. This can simply be
> > accomplished by
> > removing  the RIPE-Maintainer from the object after creation
> > and change it
> > to the according maintainer of the LIR.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> >   Arnd Vehling
> > --
> >
> > NetHead                         Network Design and Security
> > Arnd Vehling                    av at nethead.De
> > Gummersbacherstr. 27            Phone: +49 221 8809210
> > 50679 Cologne, Germany          Fax  : +49 221 8809212
> >
>


With respect,
---
RIPN Registry center
-----