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]/
[db-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastian Abt
sabt at sabt.net
Wed Aug 13 16:12:36 CEST 2003
Hi *, * Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > I like that. Me too. > > 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". I disagree. Your customer should request a seperate "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" block for his customer or otherwise if he want's to look like being independent to his customer, he should become RIPE member. I hardly can't see advantages of making sub-sub-allocations (maybe you could point them out?). regards, sebastian -- whois: sabt-ripe - phone: +49 (0)174 3420738 email: sabt at sabt.net - pgp-pubkey: 0x3B046B48
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]