This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[db-wg] RE: [lir-wg] should aut-num object for IPv4 & IPv6 be the same?

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Updated proposal for clean-up of references by name
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RE: [lir-wg] should aut-num object for IPv4 & IPv6 be the same?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

adrian.pauling at bt.com adrian.pauling at bt.com
Wed Jan 15 10:51:02 CET 2003

we have 'inet6num' objects separate to 'inetnum' to distinguish IPv6 address
assignments from IPv4.

Is the question should different 'peering-set' 'route' objects etc reflect
different peerings for IPv6 from IPv4 that an assigned AS can have? This
scenario is real as I can easily give a current (enterprise LIR) example.

Regards,

Adrian F Pauling
BT Ignite Solutions 

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Updated proposal for clean-up of references by name
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RE: [lir-wg] should aut-num object for IPv4 & IPv6 be the same?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]