North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Portability of 206 address space
> > 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 > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|