Yes, that would make life a lot easier. As I've discovered very recently. Best regards,
Paul Hoogsteder Meanie AS31019 Breedband Delft AS34108 > Hi all, > > Over on the DB-WG list at the moment there's a discussion that > participants > of this WG may be interested in. > > George Michaelson of APNIC has said that APNIC's approval process for > route > objects currently goes like this: > >> For your information, APNIC Hostmasters have moved to a mode of >> operation >> where for inetnum owners where the AS holder is not the same person, and >> a >> request is lodged with helpdesk for assistance, the hostmasters manually >> override and create the object for the inetnum holder, only removing it >> if >> an AS holder objects. The inetnum holder needs to be recognised in our >> systems. >> >> Its a hand-mediated inetnum-only route object. Previous practice was to >> wait for explicit approval from the AS holder. Now, its created first, >> and >> withdrawn if there is an objection. >> >> There have been no complaints. APNIC HM are considering portal changes >> and >> other process work to automate this. > > The holder of the aut-num is sent an email asking them to contact APNIC if > they would like the route object to be removed. > > Alex Band has asked for the RIPE community's opinions on whether this > would > be a good thing for RIPE to implement. If you have an opinion about it, > please speak up! > > Cheers, > Rob > > >
