Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 01:28:16PM +0100, Tom Hill via db-wg wrote:
On 11/06/2020 03:26, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote:
***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
And, while at it, can someone enlighten me why this is actually a desirable characteristic? If the owner of the inetnum and the owner of the aut-num agree about the creation of a new route: object, why is the owner of an existing route: object relevant? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279