Portability of 206 address space
pferguso at cisco.com
Tue Jun 4 03:00:46 UTC 1996
This stemmed from a 'what *is* portable?' discussion. I believe its
relevant in NANOG, regardless of overlap into an IETF WG topic.
In any event (and to open old wounds), I *liked* the addr-ownership
draft and believed it should've been advanced as BCP, but I digress.
Whether or not there was consensus that it should have been adopted
and advanced is not relevant; the topics it discussed surely are.
At 10:50 PM 6/3/96 -0400, @NANOG-LIST wrote:
>> The topic is discussed in more detail in
>If you could contain this discussion, for the moment in the PIER-WG
>and out of the radar range (i.e. NANOG) for a while it would be
>appreciated, I think. But then again, you are certainly free to
>do PIER-WG work in NANOG... but why?
More information about the NANOG