Poul-Henning's statistics (was: lowering maximum assignment window)

Dear Barak,

I think the problem is this:

inetnum:     62.0.128.0 - 62.0.191.255
netname:     NV-POPS
descr:       Netvision POPs
country:     IL
admin-c:     NN105-RIPE
tech-c:      NN105-RIPE
status:      ALLOCATED PA
mnt-by:      NV-MNT-RIPE
mnt-lower:   NV-MNT-RIPE
changed:     barak at netvision.net.il 19981228
source:      RIPE

You have "ALLOCATED" in the status attribute. A registry can only make 
assignments, therefore it should say "ASSIGNED" only the RIPE NCC can 
make allocations. I think this will be the cause of many of the 
inconsistencies on the list. If you have an inconsistency like this, 
please change the status attribute to say ASSIGNED instead of ALLOCATED.

Kind regards,

Paula Caslav
RIPE NCC

 "Barak Engel" <barak at netvision.net.il> writes:
 * > > By the way, one of the results of this discussion was that 
Poul-Henning
 * > > Kamp wrote a script that checks for inconsistencies between 
addresses
 * > > that are in use but are not registrered in the RIPE database. 
These
 * > > statistics can be found at: http://stat.cybercity.dk/ripe/
 * 
 *  Btw, Im not sure how this was determined... for example, Netvision 
has over
 *  600
 * of its dial-in IP's listed over there - the only ones listed - from 
the
 * 62.0.128.0/18 block. These IPs are registered as one block in the 
RIPE DB, a
 * nd
 * the IPs are used in our POPs. What is the nature of the 
inconsistency?
 * 
 *  Just wondering.
 * 
 *   Sincerely,            \'"'/
 *      Barak Engel       ( o o )
 * ---------------------ooOO-^-oOOo---------------------------
 * barak at netvision.net.il    Network Expert    BE-RIPE   BE174
 * Phone/Fax: +972 48 560600/551132  Cellular: +972 50 469 341
 * -----------------------------------------------------------
 * 
 *