Re: [lir-wg] Draft: IPv4 Sub-allocations - revisited
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:07:08 +0100
- Organisation: BayCIX GmbH, NOC Landshut
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@localhost =
= NOC BayCIX GmbH =
= http://www.noc.baycix.de/ * PGP public Key on demand * =
==========================================================================
