This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[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 ]