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/db-wg@ripe.net/
[db-wg] Decision on NWI-4 INETNUM status values
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Decision on NWI-4 INETNUM status values
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Decision on NWI-4 INETNUM status values
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis walker
ripedenis at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 22:43:35 CEST 2022
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 21:50, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:34 PM denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > I think you are arguing here for deleting assignments...that is > > another discussion... > > I'm not arguing for deleting anything. > > People have stated that they need to register an assignment which is > an exact duplicate of the allocation. The only difference would be the > value of the status attribute. I don't understand why they need to > register an exact match assignment. Why do they need to register this > assignment? Why can the allocation not be left as it is and assumed to > be used by the organisation holding it? > > What am I missing? What you are missing is that many, many, many of these /24 allocations are not being used by the resource holder';s organisation. They are assigned to end users. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG > > Thanks, > > Leo
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Decision on NWI-4 INETNUM status values
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Decision on NWI-4 INETNUM status values
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]