HI guys

This is not an issue about the mechanics of the RIPE Database. AFAIK these are the rules that have been developed over time by the routing community. The RIPE Database software simply enforces these rules. If you think the rules need updating to change the who/why/when/how ROUTE(6) objects can be created then I suggest you start a discussion about it on the Routing WG.

As the RIPE NCC is hosting an Open House on Routing Security and RPKI next week, maybe they can also cover the issue of ROUTE(6) object security as well?

cheers

denis

co-chair DB-WG

On Friday, 15 January 2021, 16:19:55 CET, Havard Eidnes via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

> Hi there
>
> Update:
> Max gave me the tip that it is possible to force delete the existing
> route objects & re-create them with the own maintainer.
> This way it works to add another route object :-)

Yes. However, I have yet to hear a comprehensible explanation
for the current rule. And ... this notion of a "force delete"
seems like a kludge to me.

Why should you not be able to go from 1 to 2 route objects for
the prefix without first having to go to 0 with all the
authorizations you listed in place? What if someone decides to
generate a prefix list at exactly the wrong moment?

Regards,

- Håvard