Re: Portability of 206 address space

[Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>]

Tim,

This stemmed from a 'what *is* portable?' discussion. I believe its
relevant in NANOG, regardless of overlap into an IETF WG topic.

In any event (and to open old wounds), I *liked* the addr-ownership
draft and believed it should've been advanced as BCP, but I digress.
Whether or not there was consensus that it should have been adopted
and advanced is not relevant; the topics it discussed surely are.

- paul

At 10:50 PM 6/3/96 -0400, @NANOG-LIST wrote:

> > The topic is discussed in more detail in 
> > draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt:

[snip]

> 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?

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