Portability of 206 address space
Avi Freedman
freedman at netaxs.com
Tue Jun 4 01:36:49 UTC 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
> >
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list