[db-wg] Decision on NWI-4 INETNUM status values

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>
> HI Denis,
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:45 AM denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 19:08, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > I'd like to understand if there is a technical need for exact match
> > > assignments that duplicate all the contact and other information from
> > > the /24 allocation. Or is the issue that there is some policy or
> > > administrative need?
> >
> > This suggestion avoids the need to duplicate any contact or other
> > details. No additional objects need to be created. The status is
> > changed from 'ALLOCATED PA' to 'ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA' in the
> > allocation object. "descr:' and "country:" are multiple attributes so
> > the end user can be identified here. If the end user has their own
> > abuse contact that can be represented with an "abuse-c:" in the
> > allocation object. The resource holder's abuse contact is still
> > referenced through their referenced ORGANISATION object. So it allows
> > a whole allocation to be documented in the database as an assignment
> > without having to duplicate any data or create multiple objects.
>
> I think we might be misunderstanding each other. I am trying to
> understand the reason two layers of registration are needed if
> everything being registered is identical.
>
> In the olden days, some ISPs offered static IP dial-up accounts and
> we'd just add a description to that effect in the inetnum for the
> allocation. No need to create any extra registrations.
>
> I'd like to understand if there is any technical or business need for
> an exact match registration that couldn't be accommodated with a
> simple change to business rules.

I think you are arguing here for deleting assignments...that is
another discussion...

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

>
> Thanks,
>
> Leo