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-training-course/route-object-creation-flowchart.pdf

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