is it just me? for me, I know that my customers have at least two levels of downstream, BEFORE the address hits the end user. And I have an upstream... I think that there is not enough granularity in the proposal. I'd be happier with two pointers, allocated-from (my upstream) delegated-to (my downstream) % % % 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 % -- --bill