nanog mailing list archives
Re: Portability of 206 address space
From: Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:48:46 -0400 (EDT)
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
I think portable wrt the NICs may be: (1) The 'Portable' vs. 'Non-Portable' marker on the ISP IP request template (2) The 'Portable' vs. 'Non-Portable' marker on whois queries that says: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE Now, as to what it *means*, it probably means that if you asked the NIC in question, they'd say 'touch luck' if you wanted to contest a SWIPping away from you of the space, I suppose. Of course, since the NIC refuses to delegate > /16s worth of in-addr.arpa, unless you have a <= /16 from your provider, you're not going to get useful in-addr.arpa from your old provider if they don't want you to. Avi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)