[3108] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Portability of 206 address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST))
Mon Jun 3 22:54:12 1996
From: Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) <nanog@linux.silkroad.com>
To: pferguso@cisco.com (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:50:06 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: freedman@netaxs.com, bmanning@isi.edu, mike@cortland.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199606040222.TAA29620@lint.cisco.com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Jun 3, 96 10:21:13 pm
Paul,
>
> The topic is discussed in more detail in
> draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt:
Interesting that you reference a draft that was opposed by numerous
people, and did not reach 'rough concensus', to support a new draft :-)
It is like building your house on quicksand.... it is sure to sink
into the quick eventually....
As you can see, many of us are engaged in 'contract issues' at the
moment .... viz. (Contract and RA) and are not actively commenting
on this draft.... but, IMO, it requires 'some work' to move
toward an objective engineering document and has obvious bias that
is still not technically supported (emotionally supported, yes).
If you could contain this discussion, for the moment in the PIER-WG
and out of the radar range (i.e. NANOG) for a while it would be
appreciated, I think. But then again, you are certainly free to
do PIER-WG work in NANOG... but why?
Best Regards,
Tim
