Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
David Kessens david at Qwest.net
Tue Mar 16 21:25:15 CET 1999
On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 06:48:15PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <009D5362.46E0DF3C.25 at cc.univie.ac.at>, "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACO > net" writes: > > > 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? > > There is certainly something to be said for making it easy for programs > to parse the registry. The current registry abbreviates. While this means a little more work for machines, people seem to have more trouble parsing long lines and are more difficult to fix in this regard than a simple parser in a program. I don't think that adding zeroes makes it easier to read and editing an existing object doesn't get very easy either: inet6num: 3FFE:1100:0:C00::/56 becomes: inet6num: 3FFE:1100:0000:0C00:0000:0000:0000:0000/56 David K. ---
[ lir-wg Archives ]