Chris Wedgwood wrote:
A transition period of 3 months for an end-user to renumber their network (assuming the subnet used by the customer has a sufficiently narrow mask) is a perfectly good objective, but we need to make sure that there are mechanisms available for the operator of the wider supernet to track and enforce the return of the holes after those three months.
Perhaps something like this then:
/24+ - non transferable, renumbering required for provider transition
/22+ - renumbering required withing 1 month
/19+ - renumbering required within three months, unless by prior arrangement with all parties
else - renumbering required within no more than 6 months and no less than 3 months, unless by prior arrangement with all parties
It would be useful to know what size blocks the major US backbone providers see as viable entries. Currently they will accept a /24 but I've seen numbers like /18 or /19 bandied around in the past as the size of blocks that will be routable on the backbone for the forseeable future. (I recall Sprint for example saying that they would support blocks of this size.) If that's the case then I see no reason to renumber blocks of those sizes - the registered holder should instead be changed. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog