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

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <199902241048.LAA07700 at x30.ripe.net>, Paula Caslav writes:
> 
> Would it be an idea to go throught he database for all "ALLOCATED"
> objects not maintained by RIPE and change them to ASSIGNED and then
> have the database software reject such records in the future ?
> 
> >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.

Personally I think that LIRs *should* be allowed to give objects a status of
"ALLOCATED" in some circumstances.

Imagine, if you can, your typical supernational registry which gets multiple
address blocks allocated by the NCC for redistribution amongst the LIR's 20
or or more associated organisations.  Here a lower level "ALLOCATED" inetnum
could be used to keep track of this redistribution (if only the NCC's
auditing tools didn't automatically assume that these - carefully labelled -
allocations were duplicate assignments.

Another possible use for LIR "ALLOCATED" inetnum objects would be to keep
track of where a range of addresses was being used for assignments to VSE
customers connected at a particular point of presence.

... just my thoughts from several years of running a large supernational
registry and currently being in the middle of a lengthy registry audit by
the RIPE NCC... ;-)

James

----- ___                       - James Aldridge, Senior Network Engineer,
---- /    /   /  ___  ____ _/_ -- EUnet Communications Services BV
--- /--- /   / /   / /___/ /  --- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL
-- /___ /___/ /   / /___  /_ ---- Tel: +31 20 530 5327; Fax: +31 20 622 4657
-                           ----- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865