[3100] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Portability of 206 address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Mon Jun 3 21:10:08 1996
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 21:06:44 -0400
To: bmanning@isi.edu (Bill Manning)
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Cc: mike@cortland.com, nanog@merit.edu
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
>
