On 8 sep 2010, at 15:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
Thus wrote Denis Walker (denis@ripe.net):
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, <kpn-ip-office@kpn.com> <kpn-ip-office@kpn.com> wrote:
I have some questions about the proposal Question 1: Why was chosen for "SUB-ASSIGNED PA" and not for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or even "LIR-PARTITIONED PA", [...]
[...]
One is to aggregate many individual customers into an assignment block.
It's a rather bikeshedding issue, but maybe pick AGGREGATED PA? LIR-PARTITIONED PA would also be easily understandable, but is a mouthful. :)
I was about to come with the same suggestion. As said, the current one basically is just a placeholder as we needed something in the revision 1 document. 'AGGREGATED XX' is pretty much unique and clearly describes the whole purpose. MarcoH