[ipv6-wg] Re: 2010-06 is going to Last Call

>> For everyone reference and help (saving 20 seconds):
>> http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html
> 
> Under 3.0 section there is:
> "When needed, more specific inet6num objects are allowed to indicate a
> different assignment size within a certain range however only one level
> of more specifics is allowed."
> 
> However rules put into 4.0 section allows to create multiple levels of
> inet6num objects with AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status. Is it ok?

In the draft document at http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2010-06.html

It says under 4.0:

4.0 Functionality

When creating or updating an inet6num object, the database will check the value of the "status:" attribute according to the following rules:

	• The inet6num object may contain an optional attribute called "assignment-size:".

	• The value of the "assignment-size:" attribute must be a longer prefix than the prefix of the object itself.

	• A value of "AGGREGATED-BY-LIR" is allowed if a one level less specific object contains a "status:" attribute with a value of "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR", "ALLOCATED-BY-LIR" or “AGGREGATED-BY-LIR”.

	• When an inet6num contains a "status:" value of "AGGREGATED-BY-LIR" the "assignment-size:” attribute becomes required.

And this describes how the database will eventually will operate, so so it will check how many levels there are when you try and create or update an object. But maybe I don't understand your question

Marco
(Again strictly as proposer/co-author)