[3106] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Portability of 206 address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Mon Jun 3 22:13:35 1996
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: pferguso@cisco.com (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:48:46 -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
I think portable wrt the NICs may be:
(1) The 'Portable' vs. 'Non-Portable' marker on the ISP IP request template
(2) The 'Portable' vs. 'Non-Portable' marker on whois queries that says:
ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
Now, as to what it *means*, it probably means that if you asked the NIC
in question, they'd say 'touch luck' if you wanted to contest a SWIPping
away from you of the space, I suppose.
Of course, since the NIC refuses to delegate > /16s worth of in-addr.arpa,
unless you have a <= /16 from your provider, you're not going to get useful
in-addr.arpa from your old provider if they don't want you to.
Avi
