Portability of 206 address space

Paul Ferguson pferguso at cisco.com
Tue Jun 4 02:21:13 UTC 1996

At 09:48 PM 6/3/96 -0400, Avi Freedman wrote:

>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:
>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.

It would appear, then, that a better definition for 'portable' needs to
come in existence. Which is why I particularly liked

After re-reading draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-01.txt, its not readily
apparent what 'portability' really means; I'm not so sure that it was the
goal of the authors to define portability.

It does state, however, that:


 2) Routability: Distribution of globally unique Internet addresses
    in a hierarchical manner, permitting the routing scalability of
    the addresses. This scalability is necessary to ensure proper
    operation of Internet routing, although it must be stressed that
    routability is in no way guaranteed with the allocation or
    assignment of IPv4 addresses.


Hence my earlier comment.

The topic is discussed in more detail in draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt:


   Since the Internet does not constrain its topology (or allowed
   topology changes), we can either have address ownership for everyone
   or a routable Internet, but not both, or we need to develop and
   deploy new mechanisms (e.g., by decoupling the address owned by the
   end users from those used by the Internet routing, and provide
   mechanisms to translate between the two). In the absence of new
   mechanisms, if we have address ownership ("portable" addresses) for
   everyone, then the routing overhead will lead to a breakdown of the
   routing system resulting in a fragmented (partitioned) Internet.
   Alternately, we can have a routable Internet, but without address
   ownership ("portable" addresses) for everyone.


- paul

More information about the NANOG mailing list