Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database

>   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