[3102] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Portability of 206 address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Mon Jun 3 21:38:05 1996
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: bmanning@isi.edu (Bill Manning)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:34:29 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: mike@cortland.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199606040035.AA06569@zephyr.isi.edu> from "Bill Manning" at Jun 3, 96 05:35:03 pm
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Anyone know whether Internic has issued an edict mandating
> > non-portability of provider obtained 206 address space, such
> > as /18's within this block?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> 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
>
