Hi James, => > "Status: LIR-ALLOCATED" Considered Useful => > ========================================= => => Sounds useful, as long as it's only effect is adding nodes to => the maintainer tree. = =I see its main use as adding nodes to the maintainer tree and also as a way of =documenting use of address space without actually making an assignment. I was using a similar approach/technique for a while to document *revoked* address assignments in the RIPE-DB. My reasoning was that the whole block of addresses being ALLOCATED by the RIR to a particular LIR is *by definition* ALLOCATED Px, unless it is ASSIGNED Px at any particular point in time. From my point of view, any address space from that block *not* being explicitely listed in an inetnum: object with status: ASSIGNED Px, has to be treated as ALLOCATED Px.
Without specific "ASSIGNED" objects below a "LIR-ALLOCATED" object the address space would still be treated as unassigned as if the new object wasn't there at all.
Exactly. However I was forced (and only partly convinced!) by the hostmasters and Paula C. to stop using that approach. If I recall correctly, there is some interaction with (undocumented?) hostmaster tools/procedures getting things mixed up. (I also mangaged to mix up a human hostmaster...) I understand that more up-to-date SW releases even preclude anyone but the NCC staff from using status: ALLOCTED xx. I don't think this is/was the right direction to go, but that's as it stands right now - to my knowledge. Do we want to re-visit that in either LIR or DB later this week? Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 __________________________________________________________________________