RE: PI VS PA ADDRESS SPACE

• To:
• From:
• Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 05:33:03 EDT

  
  
  
  
Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost wrote:
>
>I fully agree with you. However we get a significan number of requests
>from enterprises who -at this point- do not want "Internet service" but
>want to build private internets with other enterprises. This demonstrates
>that there is an intrinsic value in the uniqueness of a number even
>without "Internet service" with a capital I.  I believe that IRs should
>continue to provide this uniqueness for reasonable requests.
  
This is very similar to the position we are in - we have obtained registered
addresses in the first instance (i.e. as a solution to an immediate problem)
to make interconnections to other companies' networks. However, we also
wished to have unique addresses for future direct Internet access, and made
this clear in our applications.
  
Having gone through the considerable hassle of setting up an enterprise
registry and renumbering our networks with registered addresses, we would
take a very dim view if we were then told that our addresses were then not
routable over the Internet at large!
  
Andrew Cowie
uk.royal
  
  
 Extra X400 information begins:
             Originator
                     Name: COWIEA
                Org Units: LIVERPOOL
             Organisation: NHP
                   Domain: GB/IBMX400/ROYINT
              Node.Userid: IBMX400.116780
  
           Message Id: A70726C5.MAI
              Sent by
                   Name: COWIEA
              Org Units: LIVERPOOL
           Organisation: NHP
                 Domain: GB/IBMX400/ROYINT
            Node.Userid: IBMX400.116780
          Free Fmt Name: COWIE, Andrew / NHP
              Subject: RE: PI VS PA ADDRESS SPACE
           Recipients
                   Name: INET INET
                 Domain: GB/IBMX400/IBMMAIL
            Node.Userid: IBMMAIL.INET
          Free Fmt Name: INET, INET
          Reply request: No

• Post To The List: