New Proposal

Janos Zsako wrote:
> 
> >   From owner-lir-wg at ripe.net Thu Mar 29 14:42:22 2001
> >   From: Stephen Burley <stephenb at uk.uu.net>
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> >       I would like to here your comments on the following proposal. After
> >   being in an audit and getting a list as long as my arm of broken objects
> >   in the DB it turned out that the majority of the objects where pre RIPE
> >   and not subject to the same checks. I therefore propose that all
> >   inetnums without a status (being pre-RIPE there is no status)  should be
> >   marked with a new status of PR (Pre RIPE) and therefore be ignored by an
> >   audit tool. Also all other objects prior to ripe should be flagged so as
> >   to be ingnored in an audit, making it much easier to see what really
> >   needs fixing.
> 
> I think the idea of marking such inetnums is very good.
> 
> I am just wondering whether "no status" really means "pre RIPE".
> I suspect it is not the case, as Daniel's document was discussed
> on the mailing list in May 1995 (and is dated 30 June 0995), while
> RIPE NCC did perform allocations much earlier as far as I remember.

But in a classful enviroment.


I agree "no status" does not always mean pre-RIPE but "no status" and an
intial date before RIPE interaction does. (Date to be decided by the
community) 


> 
> So my point is that the term "pre RIPE" may be misleading.
> 
> What about "status: UK"? (UK for UnKnown :)) )

UK = United Kingdom

What about CA = Classful Allocation
> 
> Janos

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Burley         "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss,
UUNET EMEA Hostmaster            you can have a pretty good life 
[SB855-RIPE]                 if you're stupid and willing to wait"
------------------------------------------------------------------------