Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 01:28:16PM +0100, Tom Hill via db-wg wrote: > On 11/06/2020 03:26, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote: > > ***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
And, while at it, can someone enlighten me why this is actually a
desirable characteristic?
If the owner of the inetnum and the owner of the aut-num agree about
the creation of a new route: object, why is the owner of an existing
route: object relevant?
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
