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 <db-wg@ripe.net> 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-t...
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