Hi Gert, On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:57:55PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:44:24PM +0100, Sascha Lenz wrote:
One might guess that "LIR-PARTITIONED [PA|PI]" could be meant, but it also might be something completely different or even some new value since the current ripe-239 doesn't really cover the usage the sub-allocation draft suggest (5.0 in ripe-239 "IP Address Policy Implications").
No, it's not meant to be LIR-PARTITIONED. That's something different with different implications.
I vote for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA". Leo, are you listening?
I am listening. We did not specify the status value to be used as we expected input from the community. Incidentally, we are reviewing all the status attribute values at the moment. Best regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services