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

Andrius,

On 2003-01-14 23:03:43 +0200, Andrius Kasparavicius wrote:
> 
> IPv6 AS policy can differ from IPv4, should we ignore IPv6 then?

There is a draft document on extending RPSL to allow IPv6 as well as
IPv4 policies to be in aut-num objects.  This has been discussed on
the RPSLng mailing list:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/rpslng/index.html

This work was carried out in the RIPE community in the routing,
database, and IPv6 working groups.  It is an IETF draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-damas-rpslng-00.txt

The Database department at the RIPE NCC has been following this
activity closely, and has committed to implementing this in the RIPE
Database and in the IRRToolSet.  I'll be giving an estimated timeline
of when this new syntax will be available in a couple of weeks at the
RIPE 44 meeting.  (If you really want the details, you can e-mail me
off list and I can give you a full timeline, and possibly offer some
pre-release software as it becomes available.)

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC