Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
Guy Davies guyd at uk.uu.net
Tue Mar 16 21:24:38 CET 1999
> interesting, indeed. > > Taking this one step further, and looking back at what we did with IPv4, > where it would be feasible to say 131.130/16, implying 131.130.0.0/16, > I wonder if it wouldn't again be worthwhile to restrict the use of these > shorthand notations in the Address Registry? > > Is there a danger for braking something by _not_ allowing the "::" > construct in the registry at all, or - in particular - not _in the > middle_ of a prefix? I have to admit that in recording address allocations in UUNET UK's networks, I write the addresses out in full. I tabular format, it makes for much easier identification of errors and anomalies. In the RPSL format, it's a little more difficult to point to benefits for humans but, as PHK pointed out, it's easier for machines to parse. However, given that at least a few dozen hardware and software vendors have come up with a reliable way to parse the abbreviated form, it can't be that difficult. Regards, Guy
[ lir-wg Archives ]