Hi, I have to agree with Job, I don't see any real benefit to requiring the existing route's maintainer's authorization if the creation is authorized by mnt-routes on the inetnum.
- Cynthia On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 3:30 PM Job Snijders via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/06/2020 03:26, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote: > > If there is an existing, exact matching ROUTE object the creation of the > > new ROUTE object must be authorised by the existing object. There is a > > flow chart here explaining the sequence of checks: > > > https://www.ripe.net/support/training/material/bgp-operations-and-security-training-course/route-object-creation-flowchart.pdf > > Ah - great pointer. thanks. > > Denis, do you remember *why* that is the rule? > > I don't see a lot of benefit to requiring the existing object to > authorise the creation of a *new* object, when the new object is > authorised by the inetnum (in this case both through mnt-routes: and > mnt-by:). > > >> ***Error: Authorisation for [route] 194.76.156.0/22AS20676 failed > >> using "mnt-by:" not authenticated by: PLUSNET-NOC > > > > Could we reduce the confusion, and/or spread some more clue, by being > > more specific with this error? e.g. > > > > Authorisation for [blah] failed using "mnt-by:" > > - matching route object already exists > > - not authenticated by: PLUSNET-NOC > > Perhaps instead of an error message, the operation that Sasha tried to > do should just be allowed? > > Kind regards, > > Job > >
