[1525] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Yakov Rekhter)
Thu Jan 25 18:02:56 1996
To: "Miguel A. Sanz. RedIRIS/CSIC" <miguel.sanz@rediris.es>
cc: smd@sprint.net, Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>,
nanog@merit.edu, forrestc@imach.com, cidrd@iepg.org, iab@isi.edu,
iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu,
Local Internet Registries in Europe <local-ir@ripe.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Jan 96 23:22:49 +0100."
<9601252322.ZM15338@rediris.es>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 14:46:29 PST
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Miguel,
> On Jan 25, 8:20, Sean Doran wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
> >
> ...
> > > Note that we make /19 allocations even though one particular ISP is
> > > telling the world that /18 is the minimum you ought to have these days.
> >
> > Yup. And when you make the /19 allocations, you should
> > tell them that in 195/8, if they are announcing a /19, a
> > /20, a /21, a /22, a /23 or a /24, that will not work if
> > they want to talk to SprintLink via a non-customer path.
> >
>
> It's the other way round: SPRINT should tell his customers he can't
> guarantee 100% global Internet connectivity because he disagrees with
> the current address allocation policy of the IANA/InterNIC/RIPE NCC/AP-NIC.
Would you assume that anyone whose address allocation follow
"the current address allocation policy of the IANA/InterNIC/RIPE NCC/AP-NIC"
is guaranteed 100% global Internet connectivity ?
Yakov.
