[lir-wg] should aut-num object for IPv4 & IPv6 be the same?
Shane Kerr shane at ripe.net
Wed Jan 15 10:09:05 CET 2003
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
[ lir-wg Archives ]