Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

Miguel,

> On Jan 25,  8:20, Sean Doran wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
> >
> ...
> > > Note that we make /19 allocations even though one particular ISP is
> > > telling the world that /18 is the minimum you ought to have these days.
> >
> > Yup.  And when you make the /19 allocations, you should
> > tell them that in 195/8, if they are announcing a /19, a
> > /20, a /21, a /22, a /23 or a /24, that will not work if
> > they want to talk to SprintLink via a non-customer path.
> >
> 
> It's the other way round: SPRINT should tell his customers he can't
> guarantee 100% global Internet connectivity because he disagrees with
> the current address allocation policy of the IANA/InterNIC/RIPE NCC/AP-NIC.

Would you assume that anyone whose address allocation follow
"the current address allocation policy of the IANA/InterNIC/RIPE NCC/AP-NIC"
is guaranteed 100% global Internet connectivity ?

Yakov.