IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050

Thu Oct 8 02:36:06 UTC 1998

> But seriously I would suggest that you would have some expectation
> of rights due to RFC2050 as much as any properity rights exist for
> so called legacy addresses.
> 
After taking a cursory glance at RFC2050, i happened upon
the ambiguous and unintelligable wording 'best current
practice'.  Even though the definition of this term was thoroughly
obfuscated, i did not find LAW or JESUS SPAKE preceding any
of the edicts contained within the mentioned rfc.

> At any rate it sounds like a unilaterial contract change by CW,
> which may be unenforcable.  I'd just continue to announce the
> more specifics for 6 months just to make it as difficult as possible
> for CW to re-use them.
> 
No one will listen to your announcements because you don't matter.

> It won't win CW and friends that's for sure. (hello AGIS/Net99, anyone?)
> 
you don't need friends when people _need_ to reach your network.

On an operationally related question:

Do grammar and nanog go hand-in-hand or is nanog becoming (has always 
been?) a forum for the functionally illiterate?

BR