seems better but not perfect - the important thing is to get all databases looking the same and using the same terms? strictly speaking it is not "ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER" its "ASSIGNED-TO-SUBNET-USER" for example it could be part of a DHCP dial up pool and thus only " leased" for the duration of that connexion.
At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote:
I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses.
This is an excellent idea. However I would use ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. That way we clarify the subtle difference while maintaining consistency with existing documentation.
(If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which is not quite the case.)
Daniel