nanog mailing list archives
Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis () ans net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 14:56:11 -0500
Yakov, The way I read your message is that all new network numbers should be CIDRized and fundamentally not be portable between service providers. This is a bit rigid. Shouldn't there be another option that allows portability too? Marty
If a component moves, and does not want to renumber, the old provider should announce an unreachable for the component (that is obviously more specific than the aggregate) and the new provider should announce the component that moved. You should ask the customer to renumber and explain why and strongly urge then to do so. I don't think anyone is advocating forced renumbering (are they)? Curtis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates Dale S. Johnson (Apr 14)
- Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates Tony Bates (Apr 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates yakov (Apr 14)
- Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 14)
- Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates Curtis Villamizar (Apr 14)
- Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 14)
- Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates John Curran (Apr 14)
- Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates Daniel Karrenberg (Apr 15)
- Re: 722 Nets, 23 ASs, 98 Aggregates Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 14)