[lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num object s
- Previous message (by thread): [lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num object s
- Next message (by thread): Draft document "IRT Object in the RIPE Database" is available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jul 8 14:58:28 CEST 2002
Hi, On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:53:02PM +0100, Guy Davies wrote: > I would prefer RIR-LIR-ALLOCATED, LIR-SUB-ALLOCATED and > LIR-USER-ASSIGNED (or similar) if we must keep ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED > in the descriptions. I don't think that it is immediately clear from > the proposals below whether LIR-ALLOCATED is allocated by an LIR or > to an LIR. That would be fine with me. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45809 (45931) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num object s
- Next message (by thread): Draft document "IRT Object in the RIPE Database" is available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]