Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
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.
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> .