Add a IRR as-set/route-set field resp. irr_as_set6 for IPv6

[arnoldnipper]

Although IPv6 is around for two decades some networks still have different routing policies for IPv4 and IPv6. To support this a new field "IRR as-set/route-set IPv6" resp. irr_as_set6 would be needed. This would also allow for a clear structure as this field only can have a single value then.

Relates to #26 #151 and #260

[shane-kerr]

In RPSL you can declare as many AS-SET objects as you want, which allows networks with different routing policies to have an AS-SET for IPv4 and an AS-SET for IPv6, if that matches their deployment. Is this not possible with the PeeringDB mapping?

[job]

RPSL allows for very advanced stuff, but nobody uses those features. In practice virtually everyone assumes one as-set

…

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:48 Shane Kerr ***@***.***> wrote: In RPSL you can declare as many AS-SET objects as you want, which allows networks with different routing policies to have an AS-SET for IPv4 and an AS-SET for IPv6, if that matches their deployment. Is this not possible with the PeeringDB mapping? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#605?email_source=notifications&email_token=AABFRWGHJ7KBERSWVATQWWLQW6KHJA5CNFSM4JU4YMF2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEF4XXMA#issuecomment-561609648>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABFRWH7LNYRFZ6GHGJN6MTQW6KHJANCNFSM4JU4YMFQ> .