|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Statements against new.net?
Roeland, This thread was about "If IP portability was MANDATED, (like telephone local number portability was mandated), how could it be implemented without blowing up the routing tables?" Hence the qualifier: If all IP addresses will be portable because of the above referenced mandate, there will no grab for interesting addresses. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 PM > To: 'Kavi, Prabhu'; 'Joe Abley' > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > You're kidding, right? After what MHSC just went through, if > someone were to > offer a routable/portable /24, my only response would be to > ask where you > wanted the body delivered. It would be warm and cooling upon delivery. > > Portable/routable IP addresses are MORE desireable than domain names. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kavi, Prabhu [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM > > To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > > > Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting > > domain names, people worry less about having an > > interesting IP address, especially if they know it > > will be portable. > > > > Prabhu > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joe Abley [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM > > > To: Kavi, Prabhu > > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote: > > > > No, think of this as a resolution step that happens > > > > in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for > > > > IP<->IP address translation. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of a session, a translation request > > > > is made to resolve to the logical address (and all > > > > IP addresses are considered logical at first, just > > > > like all telephone addresses are considered logical > > > > until they are resolved). The translation is made, > > > > and the physical IP address is cached and used for > > > > the session. > > > > > > > > Obviously, end stations do not request this > > > > translation today so it would first require a > > > > protocol definition. > > > > > > This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address > portability > > > that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just > described DNS, > > > but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/. > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > >
|