[lir-wg] Draft: IPv4 Sub-allocations - revisited

Hay,

On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:57:55PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:44:24PM +0100, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> > One might guess that "LIR-PARTITIONED [PA|PI]" could be meant, but it
> > also might be something completely different or even some new value since
> > the current ripe-239 doesn't really cover the usage the sub-allocation draft
> > suggest (5.0 in ripe-239 "IP Address Policy Implications").
> 
> No, it's not meant to be LIR-PARTITIONED.  That's something different
> with different implications.

right, but _could_ be altered to be used here, too - too many new status:
values are not so good either. Though, I agree, it's not appropriate here
since it was introduced with a slightly different intention.

> I vote for "SUB-ALLOCATED PA".  Leo, are you listening?

what about allowing "ALLOCATED-BY-LIR" in inetnum:s ?
Would be consistent with inet6num:s then a bit, and not again a completely
new value.
On the other hand, someone might mix up IPv4 and IPv6 then somehow.

But i don't really care personally what will be used, it just has to be
included in the document :) 

-- 
==========================================================================
= Sascha 'master' Lenz          SLZ-RIPE           slz at baycix.de         =
= NOC BayCIX GmbH                                                        =
= http://www.noc.baycix.de/                * PGP public Key on demand *  =
==========================================================================