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

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 17:51, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:43 PM denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > 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.
>
> Thanks for stating this clearly.
>
> I agree with everyone else that ensuring the published contact data
> are accurate is most important. Does that require a software solution?
> Could it be accomplished with a process change? For instance, if an
> LIR leases a block to a network operator and shares some kind of
> documentation with the RIPE NCC, could the RIPE NCC delegate control
> of the contact data to the network operator for the duration of the
> lease?

It is not only the contact details that are wrong. If an allocation is
leased/rented to another LIR how should this be documented in the RIPE
Database? Currently many of these blocks are being assigned to the
receiving LIR. But they most likely use this address space in the same
way as they use all their other allocations. It is quite possible many
of these blocks are being sub-assigned by the receiving LIR. But that
is not allowed with the database syntax. So the true nature and usage
of this address space is unknown. Leasing address space is becoming
more common now. Perhaps we need yet another status value for INETNUM
objects like 'ALLOCATED-BY-LIR'. So it is possible to reflect that an
allocation has been re-allocated to another LIR, who can then assign
it. But of course with so many /24 allocations now we are back to the
original problem of re-allocation of a whole allocation...

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo