Hello Henk, Could you please react to this mail of Sue (perhaps together with Daniel). It seems that there are some changes proposed to the document discussed within RIPE. It is important to have a common view of would should be in the RIPE database and if there need to be made changes before a big use is made of it. Please provide your input to this. All the best, Victor ==> From: Susan Hares
Victor:
I'd like to suggest a departure from your current structure of the current RIPE for clnp. I think the CLNP information should mirror the IP functions. IP keeps the following information:
1) Registration of IP addresses and AS information 2) Registration of Routing policy 3) Registration of Aggregation policy
CLNP ought to have as close as a format to IP as possible.
Therefore:
I would suggest use use two different denotations:
i-prefix - for the nlri prefix RD-prefix - for the domain's RDI which is the AS equivalent.
I find your use in the SURFNET prefixes to confuse between RDI - which is the AS equivalent and the nlri prefix.