Re: [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation

[Shane Kerr <]

Gert Doering,

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:08:57PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> > In the meantime, we do not want to delay the implementation of the
> > Sub-Allocation policy.  For that reason we'd like to have an interim
> > status attribute value for that.
> I like that.
>
>
> > Proposal:
> >
> > Add "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" to the allowed "status:" values.
>
> That would be in agreement with the original proposal, so "I like that" 
> (obviously).
>
>
> > "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" inetnum object may have an "ALLOCATED PA" or an
> > "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" less specific inetnum object.
> >
> > A range of IP's can only have a single "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" in it.  That
> > is, you cannot sub-allocate twice.
>
> I wouldn't force that on anyone.  It might not always make sense, but
> we have at least one reseller that has a re-selling customer - so a 
> two-level structure is already in place.
>
> So "please don't do that".
Okay, this makes sense.  This restriction will not be added.

--
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC