On Fri, 01 May 2015 20:34:43 +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:07:00PM +0000, Shane Kerr wrote:
On Fri, 1 May 2015 11:15:52 -0400 William <william.sylvester@addrex.net> wrote:
In my use cases, the holder of the inetnum is the ultimate authority
In any use case I can imagine the inetnum should be the ultimate authority, it comes as a suprise to me this is not the case for some types of space. The entire security model flows from there.
I sympathize with your problem, and actually tend to agree with your philosophy here.
Why should we treat legacy networks differently from non-legacy networks?
Making it difficult to clean up related objects just results in crap in the database, and may have actual operational impact (inability to peer, incorrect reverse DNS, and so on).
So I think we should accept your proposal, which then becomes, "apply reclaim functionality using all inetnum objects".
I agree with the above.
I think I might also, but I'm not sure I've fully understood.
It would be much appreciated if anyone offer insight in how this came to be and why we should consider it anything else then an undocumented inconsistency (or should I just say 'bug')?
I definitely agree with this. Niall