interesting, indeed.
Taking this one step further, and looking back at what we did with IPv4, where it would be feasible to say 131.130/16, implying 131.130.0.0/16, I wonder if it wouldn't again be worthwhile to restrict the use of these shorthand notations in the Address Registry?
Is there a danger for braking something by _not_ allowing the "::" construct in the registry at all, or - in particular - not _in the middle_ of a prefix?
I have to admit that in recording address allocations in UUNET UK's networks, I write the addresses out in full. I tabular format, it makes for much easier identification of errors and anomalies. In the RPSL format, it's a little more difficult to point to benefits for humans but, as PHK pointed out, it's easier for machines to parse. However, given that at least a few dozen hardware and software vendors have come up with a reliable way to parse the abbreviated form, it can't be that difficult. Regards, Guy