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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Mon Aug 15 12:45:29 CEST 2022
In message <19f8c8b6-0590-8903-0e9e-ec6638d1f442 at ripe.net>, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote: >As Elvis clarified, the examples you listed are the results of resource >transfers. > >The “netname:” attribute of an INETNUM object in the RIPE Database >indicates whether an IPv4 allocation was received directly from the RIPE >NCC or via a transfer. Please elaborate. How does it do that exactly? For example, what does this value tell us about how the block was received? CH-AS5398-20191016 >It includes the date on which that range was >provided by the RIPE NCC, also for smaller ranges that are part of a >previously bigger range. If the date in the “netname:” and the date on >which the object was created differ, you can deduce that the range >concerned was not allocated directly by the RIPE NCC. In other words you are saying that 193.222.104.0/23 wasw purchased, correct? >I hope this helps answer your question. It may, once I understand clearly everything you just said. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]