Re: RIPE-DB WG Paris, item 2.3

    Considering this, I would propose to have thos networks classes
    in the RIPE DB as <net> <mask> pairs:
      *in: 192.124.0.0 255.255.0.0
    instead of 256 (ok, 254 :-) network entries.
Depends on what you take network entries to stand for.
Sofar network entries in the RIPE database have always
uniquely indentified a network, complete with associated
persons etc. This can never be replaced by concatening
network into "masked supernets" without serious loss of
information. The proposed change is a useful one only for
routing, not for information.
The only case where I see a use for the proposed change
is when an organisation has multiple networks with all
the same data; but this is independent of the possible
of supernetting and thus could be implemented independent
of that.


	Piet