[address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [db-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at ripe.net
Fri Aug 15 15:36:37 CEST 2003
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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [db-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]