Re: National NICs

  • To: "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <map at iphil dot net>
  • Subject: Re: National NICs
  • From: "David R. Conrad" <davidc at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 13:24:07 +0900
  • Cc: bgreene at cisco dot com (Barry Raveendran Greene), apops at apnic dot net, davidc at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 May 1997 01:01:07." <199704301701.BAA09527 at marikit dot iphil dot net>
  • Sender: owner-apops@apnic.net
    • Hi Miguel,
      
      >What are the requirements such that a NIC can get a /16 that will subdivide
      >this into 8 /19s for its members?  
      
      What you're describing in an APNIC confederation -- APNIC would
      allocate a /19 to each confederation member (see APNIC-052 for
      details).
      
      However, as a result of the APNIC meeting in HK, we have a moratorium
      on the creation of new confederations until the funding issue is
      resolved.
      
      >We currently have 203.176/19;
      >can we get 203.176/16 for the PH-NIC, since it is apparently not yet
      >allocated?
      
      The actual address space we'd allocate would most likely be from the
      210 block for various reasons.
      
      >If this is not possible, and assuming that the entire NIC gets a /19 to 
      >start with, won't we have a problem with routability (of course the APNIC
      >disclaimer that assigned networks have no routability guarantees applies).
      
      Yup, this is why we have the confederations in the first place (I'd
      note that RIPE-NCC does not have confederations at all, nor a concept
      of a national NIC -- all ISPs are required to go to RIPE-NCC (or their
      upstream) for their addresses).
      
      Regards,
      -drc
      _________________________________________________________________________
      To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------