[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:44:18AM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> How do people feel about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR ? Stays in line with the
> current ones and describes the purpose.

I don't really appreciate the "BY-LIR" thing as there is no requirement
(that I know of) for the object to be maintained by a LIR.  Section 4.0
of the draft confirms this stating that such a block can be a one level
more specific of an ASSIGNED inet6num.

The main idea of the draft is that assignation details are maintained
out of the RIPE database.

I would favor things like:

- ASSIGNED-EXTERNAL
- ASSIGNED-AGGREGATED
- AGGREGATED-BY-ORG

But none of them is really good.


Is there really a need to have a new status for this kind of
assignments?  I fail to see any reason why ASSIGNED couldn't be used,
all the semantics being carried by the assignment-size attribute.


Cheers,
-- 
Bertrand Yvain
http://www.IELO.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20100910/3436e710/attachment.sig>