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 22:11:39 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

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

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