North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Portability of 206 address space

  • From: Avi Freedman
  • Date: Mon Jun 03 21:37:38 1996

> 
> 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
> >
> 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -