Hay, 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.
right, but _could_ be altered to be used here, too - too many new status: values are not so good either. Though, I agree, it's not appropriate here since it was introduced with a slightly different intention.
I vote for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA". Leo, are you listening?
what about allowing "ALLOCATED-BY-LIR" in inetnum:s ? Would be consistent with inet6num:s then a bit, and not again a completely new value. On the other hand, someone might mix up IPv4 and IPv6 then somehow. But i don't really care personally what will be used, it just has to be included in the document :) -- ========================================================================== = Sascha 'master' Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = NOC BayCIX GmbH = = http://www.noc.baycix.de/ * PGP public Key on demand * = ==========================================================================