At 07:13 PM 6/8/97 -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
Should InterNIC grant small ISPs (this one serves a rural area between Dallas and Oklahoma City) fully routable and portable IP space?
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
A long time ago, a group asked the same question. The answer turned out to be that the Internic, not being an ISP, has no clue about the routability of -any- prefix that is delegated. No delegation registry can ensure the routability of any given prefix.
Thngs may have changed, can you describe to me what you consider a "fully routable and portable IP space" might look like and how such conditions might be enforced?
-- --bill
Bill, I feel you could provide a better definition, but what others tell me is that CIDR blocks with prefixes longer than /19 are fully routable if they are in the 192/8--205/8 range (a regurgitation of Sprint el al's routing policy?). What is your definition of "fully routable"? What is your definition of "portable"? What is the role of "legacy" equipment, if any, in such matters? Are the larger players concerned that the smaller players don't have "certified" BGP configurations? I appreciate your input and that of others as well. Regards, Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571