Hi, Thanks for raising this.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:36 AM Petrit Hasani <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > Before making any changes, we want to be sure that we understand the intent > of the policy and what the community wants us to do. Thus, we would like to > hear from the Address Policy Working Group: > > - Should inetnums with these statuses be allowed to be created inside one > another? > - Should there be a limit on the minimum size of a sub-allocation? > - Do we need a policy update? > > We look forward to your guidance. Casting my mind back to why this status exists, it is possible that the original goals no longer need support in the RIPE Database. Nurani quoted James Aldridge (then at EUnet) when describing the RIPE NCC proposal: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2001-September/001732.html Since then, the RIPE NCC has deployed the LIR Portal and large ISPs have (mostly) embraced IPAM. So, it would be good to know if the original need still exists or has changed somewhat. If that need has changed, how has it changed? Is whatever functionality is required best deployed in the RIPE Database or should it be deployed through the LIR Portal, simplifying the allocation hierarchy shown over RDAP? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda
