On Feb 09, Christian Rasmussen <chr@jay.net> wrote:
Tagging the _allocation_ object of an LIR would cover _all_ the _assignment_ objects in that block. With the added benefit that you can still have a "more specific" or 1st-line pointer in an assignment object.
I wasn't aware of this, is it explained in ripe-254?
With a quick look I've found it explained at least in section 7: The new query functionality allows searching for an inetnum object that contains the reference to an irt object representing CSIRT responsible for a given address or address range. It is implemented with a new '-c' flag that modifies the behaviour of a normal ip lookup, so that the Database will return the smallest less specific inetnum (inet6num) object containing the reference to an irt object.
In many cases such incidents are handled by CSIRTs whose contacts are different from those listed in "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" attributes.
That is my problem, this object is designed for making it possible to outsource handling of abuse. Its not a problem that the object has this No, it's not. It's made for sites which are not Joe's ISP and Grill, where the abuse desk is a different team from the one which manages routing.
Can you acknowledge that by making these features mandatory you put unnecessary work on LIRs not outsourcing abuse handling? In reality this Not really.
means several of these will probably decide not to take the time to create these objects (as we know very few has been created). I think the fault was in bad documentation, not in complexity of deployment.
-- ciao, | Marco | [4527 l'3KkkSJYlL.M]