[db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT

Hi Wilfried, others,

| >should I revert that software
| >change and NOT set mnt-irt in the more specifics, or should I leave it
| >as is. Opinions ?
| 
|   setting it to the _same_ pointer is superfluous or just duplication of
|   information.
I have rolled back the CVS to reflect Jeroen's previous behavior. I was
not aware that IRT was meant to be followed upstream until an object was
found.

|   BUT - what you can do with this mechanism is to point to a _different_
|   irt object. Either for a subset of your own infrastructure (like a
|   regional PoP), or as a 1st level contact for your downstreams.
..
|   And those downstreams can update the contact info without having to
|   bother you in your role as the _address_ bookkeeping :-)
Understood. This is not the case with SixXS.

Thanks for the insights to those involved. Also thanks for updating the
statistics to reflect which inet6nums are being referenced by an IRT
object 'up stream'.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,
BIT BV / Ing P.B. van Pelt
PBVP1-RIPE (PGPKEY-4DCA7E5E)