North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Statements against new.net?
- From: Roeland Meyer
- Date: Thu Mar 15 21:34:29 2001
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@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM
> To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu
> Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Abley [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM
> > To: Kavi, Prabhu
> > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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