>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone know whether Internic has issued an edict mandating
> non-portability of provider obtained 206 address space, such
> as /18's within this block?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Hi,
>
> Anyone know whether Internic has issued an edict mandating
> non-portability of provider obtained 206 address space, such
> as /18's within this block?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -