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]/
[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 ]