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

On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:55:45PM +0000, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> 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
> 
> So, according to third point I can create inet6num object with /36 size
> and status "AGGREGATED-BY-LIR" under my allocation, and then another
> inet6num object with /37 size and status "AGGREGATED-BY-LIR" under this
> bigger one and then another one and so on. There is nothing about two
> levels less specific object. But maybe I don't understand this correctly.


You are righrt, it seems a bit strange ,without the policy that says only one level is allowed to it next to it (it's in another document). Please also take a look at the mail from Denis Walker on how the RIPE NCC will implement this and will be checking the grandparent object as well.

Grtx,

Marco