[20258] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bradley Reynolds)
Thu Oct 8 03:08:37 1998
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 02:36:06 +0000 (GMT)
From: Bradley Reynolds <brad@null0.qual.net>
To: Jeremy Porter <jerry@freeside.fc.net>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199810080425.XAA22862@freeside.fc.net>
> 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
