Re: Portability of 206 address space
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
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
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
participants (2)
-
Avi Freedman -
Paul Ferguson