Subject: Re: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Non-member submission from [Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>]

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:27:55 -0500

Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]: Non-member submission from [Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>]
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:19:09 -0700

you must post from your subscription address

randy

------- start of forwarded message -------
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: BOUNCE [email-masked]:    Non-member submission from [Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>]   
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:31:20 -0700

>From [email-masked] Tue Oct 23 07:31:19 2001
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:31:13 -0500
From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Update to Provider Independent addressing format drafts
Sender: [email-masked]
To: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
 [email-masked], [email-masked],
 [email-masked]

(Do so many lists really need to be cc'd?)

> > This means that giving up the lease on that single building will cause all
> > IP devices to renumber yet the costs due to the physical relocation are
> > small.
> 
> seems like a stretch.  as long as the company retained some network presence 
> in that area it should be able to keep that prefix.

It seems to me that a Wall Street prefix would not be announced by
(or accepted by peers of) an upstream provider in Chicago, or perhaps
even Connecticut.  So traffic using the Wall Street PI prefix might
actually have to be routed through some location in New York.  This
might be impractical.

------- end of forwarded message -------