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

Hi Gert,

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

I am listening.

We did not specify the status value to be used as we expected input
from the community. Incidentally, we are reviewing all the status
attribute values at the moment.

Best regards,

-- 
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services