nanog mailing list archives
Re: Portability of 206 address space
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 21:06:44 -0400
The interNIC has already stated that allocations can *not* be guaranteed to be 'routable', so it stands to reason that the interNIC (or any other registry, for that matter) need not concern itself with the issue of portability. As you mentioned, this is strictly a matter between the ISP(s) and the customer(s). - paul At 05:35 PM 6/3/96 -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
Please clarify "portable" as used in this context. - Routable between different providers - Transferable intoto between ISPs - Transferable subsets - Some other meaning No delegation registry can claim any prefix portability if the first option is the meaning. The second has applicability to various proposals for a prefix market once a delegation has been made. (no Internic involvment) The third is strictly between ISPs and thier clients and has a lot to do with prefix migration (nee punching holes in CIDR blocks) and nothing to do with the Internic. And then there is your possible other meaning... For the first three, the Internic has zero sane reason for issuing any "edict" wrt portability. That is strictly an ISP issue. The fourth... ??? :) --bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Portability of 206 address space mike (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Bill Manning (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Avi Freedman (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Kim Hubbard (Jun 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Paul Ferguson (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Avi Freedman (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Avi Freedman (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Paul Ferguson (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space @NANOG-LIST (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Paul Ferguson (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Bill Manning (Jun 03)