Re: [lir-wg] IPv6 assignments to RIPE itself

• From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" < >
• Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:27:52 +0100
• Cc:

>| > whois 2001:610:240:0:193::193
>| inet6num:     2001:0610:0240::/42
>| netname:      RIPE-NCC-IPv6
>| descr:        RIPE NCC
>| status:       ALLOCATED-BY-LIR

  I think there are 2 questions here that should be discussed,
     	under the premises that SURFnet has set aside a /42 for
	the NCC from SURFnet's sTLA:

  a) what is the "correct" status: field for a block bigger than /48
     I think in most cases (like /47, /46 for a big site) it should
     simply be ASSIGNED, even if it is as big as a /42.

  b) in a more general sense, to what level are we (LIR) and our
     sites/customers (/64, /48 or bigger) expected to document internal
     address management?

  For the moment, the only thing that looks funny _for me_ is the status:
  "ALLOCATED-BY-LIR". I read that as an indication that the NCC would make
  _assignments_ from that block, e.g. /64s and /48s - which I think
  _should_ be registered by the NCC or by SURFnet.

  Wilfried.

• Post To The List:

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [lir-wg] IPv6 assignments to RIPE itself
    • From: Jeroen Massar