Re: Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database

[David Kessens <]

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 06:48:15PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <009D5362.46E0DF3C.25@localhost>, "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.
---