Dear Sascha (and Colleagues), The error message that you quote is for a /24 (more specific) route, not the /22 route that you say you're attempting to create.
I hope that helps. Kind regards. Pierre. On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:32 AM Sascha E. Pollok via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear friendly DB people, > > here is a problem I don't find easy to solve. Would you assist me in > understanding the > constraints? > > Customer has a /22 network 194.76.156.0/22 with the proper inetnum > object. The inetnum > objects has a mnt-by: IPHH-NOC and mnt-routes: IPHH-NOC. > > A route object exists but with a different maintainer: > > route: 194.76.156.0/22 > descr: CMELCHERS-QSC-NET > descr: via Plusnet > origin: AS20676 > mnt-by: PLUSNET-NOC <<<---- not IPHH-NOC > > We are now trying to create an additional route object for a different ASN: > > route: 194.76.156.0/22 > descr: C. Melchers via MEKO-S > origin: AS207630 > mnt-by: IPHH-NOC <<<--- This is the maintainer in the inetnum > object > source: RIPE > > The RIPE DB refuses the update: > > Create FAILED: [route] 194.76.156.0/24AS207630 > route: 194.76.156.0/24 > descr: C. Melchers via MEKO-S > descr: belongs to 194.76.156.0/22 > origin: AS207630 > mnt-by: IPHH-NOC > source: RIPE > ***Error: Authorisation for [route] 194.76.156.0/22AS20676 failed > using "mnt-by:" > not authenticated by: PLUSNET-NOC > > So the DB expects the maintainer from the other route object. But I don't > understand why > the mnt-routes in the inetnum-object doesnt give preference over the > maintainer on a > different route-object. > > Anyone who could share their honest opinion? > > Cheers > Sascha > >
