Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Statements against new.net?

  • From: Kavi, Prabhu
  • Date: Thu Mar 15 21:45:57 2001

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:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 PM
> To: 'Kavi, Prabhu'; 'Joe Abley'
> Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu
> 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:prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM
> > To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu
> > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu
> > 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:jabley@automagic.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM
> > > To: Kavi, Prabhu
> > > Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu
> > > 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
> > > 
> > 
> 





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.