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