[3103] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Portability of 206 address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Mon Jun 3 21:39:29 1996
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: pferguso@cisco.com (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:36:49 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: bmanning@isi.edu, mike@cortland.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199606040107.SAA14179@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jun 3, 96 09:06:44 pm
>
> 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
> >
>
