<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_87776">Colleagues</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_87932"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_87931" dir="ltr">We are now approaching the implementation stage for managing the existing out of region ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database (NWI-5). A question has been asked about the creation of new ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database relating to non RIPE address space. This will still be technically possible after implementation of the solution for NWI-5.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_88072">The question we now need to answer is...Do we want to allow the creation of new ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database for non RIPE address space?</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_88101"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_88170">Over the years this issue has been debated within this community there have been arguments made for and against this situation. The case against doing this is well known now. If anyone believes there is still a case for allowing these object creations (either for any address space or for some section of the global address space) then can you please make your case now. We would like to wrap up this whole issue with a clear consensus from the community.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_88214"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_88224">cheers</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_88226">denis</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1513116385906_88228">co-chair DB WG<br></div></div></body></html>