AW: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update

that's true, I've made the same experiences.
Mostly we request an own maintainer for a customer when we request a new PI
network,
but the majority of the users hasn't the knowledge or they don't want to
build up knowledge
to create or to update the RIPE database...

Marcus

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Sebastien Lahtinen [mailto:md at ncuk.net]
Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2003 15:20
An: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net
Betreff: RE: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update


On Thu, 22 May 2003, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

> >but if it was not an option for the LIR to be maintainer of the
> >customers PI assignment (end user mandatory maintainer) it would solve
> >the problem.
>
>   2 problems here:
>
>   - the LIR has to "donate" its resources to apply for the PI block with
>     the NCC. So there may be a reason (in some cases) for protecting the
>     object with the LIR's maintainer;
>
>   - in our case (for customers with legacy addresses) we have an agreement
>     in place to jointly manage and protect the inetnum objects. Some may
>     even choose to have us do that as a service.
>     For that reason, blocking this would be undesirable from my point of
>     view.

I couldn't agree more. We've done PI for clients on their own maintainer
if that's what they want, but creating extra maintainers "for the sake of
it" seems pointless because half the PI users may not understand how to
use their maintainer anyway!


Sebastien.


---
NetConnex Broadband Ltd.
tel. +44 870 745 4830  fax. +44 870 745 4831
Court Farm Lodge, 1 Eastway, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8SG. United Kingdom.