[122869] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Barnes)
Mon Feb 22 15:24:52 2010
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1002222201520.569@efes.iucc.ac.il>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:24:15 -0500
From: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>
Cc: NANOG Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Dude, think to the future -- /128s!
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wro=
te:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
>
>> I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number
>> Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to
>> escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
>>
>> Alas, such was not their fate :)
>>
>> I would watch out for this idea, it might actually catch on in various
>> places, warts and all...
>
> Can IP number portability be far behind? =A0You think your routing tables=
are
> big now?! =A0Wait till you are mandated to carry /32s for IP number
> portability :-)
>
> -Hank
>
>
