On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote: > > HI Denis, > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:45 AM denis walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 19:08, Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > > I'd like to understand if there is a technical need for exact match > > > assignments that duplicate all the contact and other information from > > > the /24 allocation. Or is the issue that there is some policy or > > > administrative need? > > > > This suggestion avoids the need to duplicate any contact or other > > details. No additional objects need to be created. The status is > > changed from 'ALLOCATED PA' to 'ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA' in the > > allocation object. "descr:' and "country:" are multiple attributes so > > the end user can be identified here. If the end user has their own > > abuse contact that can be represented with an "abuse-c:" in the > > allocation object. The resource holder's abuse contact is still > > referenced through their referenced ORGANISATION object. So it allows > > a whole allocation to be documented in the database as an assignment > > without having to duplicate any data or create multiple objects. > > I think we might be misunderstanding each other. I am trying to > understand the reason two layers of registration are needed if > everything being registered is identical. > > In the olden days, some ISPs offered static IP dial-up accounts and > we'd just add a description to that effect in the inetnum for the > allocation. No need to create any extra registrations. > > I'd like to understand if there is any technical or business need for > an exact match registration that couldn't be accommodated with a > simple change to business rules.
I think you are arguing here for deleting assignments...that is another discussion... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG > > Thanks, > > Leo -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
