Hay, even though i hope that everyone already noticed it, i didn't see any comments about it on any list yet: in "3.0 Database registration" the draft states: [...] 3.1 Status attribute for inetnums representing sub-allocations Registration of a sub-allocation in the RIPE Database requires the creation of an inetnum object with an appropriate status value. 3.2 Restriction on creation of inetnums with an .ASSIGNED. status The creation of an inetnum object with a status of .ASSIGNED PA. or .ASSIGNED PI. will not be allowed if there is either a less specific or more specific inetnum object with an .ASSIGNED. status. The assigned status inetnum is the most specific registration allowed. [...] ...just that it seems to lack the information _what_ status value is appropriate for a sub-allocation then. 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"). ...just my 0.02EUR -- ========================================================================== = Sascha 'master' Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = NOC BayCIX GmbH = = http://www.noc.baycix.de/ * PGP public Key on demand * = ==========================================================================
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? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55600 (55857) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
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 * = ==========================================================================
Hi, On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:07:08PM +0100, Sascha Lenz wrote:
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.
I agree. This might be a good idea, to be consistant.
On the other hand, someone might mix up IPv4 and IPv6 then somehow.
Well, the rules are a bit different, but the interpretation is the same - this address block was given to someone else, who is now responsible to maintain it. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55600 (55857) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
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
Hi, On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:13:29PM +0100, leo vegoda wrote:
We did not specify the status value to be used as we expected input from the community.
Ah, ok. We got some good input, I'd say :-)
Incidentally, we are reviewing all the status attribute values at the moment.
Looking forward to see the outcome... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55600 (55857) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
leo vegoda -
Sascha Lenz