Re: Portability of 206 address space

[Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>]

> 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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -