North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Statements against new.net?
- From: Roeland Meyer
- Date: Fri Mar 16 00:47:21 2001
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:47 PM
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes -- but no one IP is any more or less desirable than any other IP,
> assuming both are portable, routable, and routed. Not so with domain
> names. Anyone want to guess how much sex.com would sell for?
> As opposed
> to, say, jkl.cx ...
Wrongo, a routable portable IP block is MUCH more desireable than a
non-routable one. This usually means legacy space. ISP specific and CIDR
swamps are not cool. It must be portable and routable. See, I just created a
market differentiator. Rather, I pointed one out. In the DNS world, it's
specific string, in the IP-block world, it's the attributes associated with
the particular block.
BTW, i've been getting comments that some folks are biasing evaluations of
some clients, based on the ip addrs of the client's hosts. They know which
ones are in AboveNet, ELI, etc co-lo's.