[2412] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address "portability"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Fri Apr 5 15:37:03 1996
From: matthew@scruz.net (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:32:57 -0800
In-Reply-To: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>
"Re: Address "portability"" (Apr 5, 12:05)
To: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>, Eric Kozowski <kozowski@structured.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Original message <CMM.0.90.0.828702375.roll@Junk.Stupi.SE>
From: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>
Date: Apr 5, 12:05
Subject: Re: Address "portability"
>
> >
> > What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of
> > addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc.
> > kozowski@structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
> > (503)656-3530 Voice "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
> > (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1
> >
>
>
> Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale.
>
> Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number
> work in
> California.
>
> --Peter
>-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg
The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
are regulated, and they get the same mandate.
-matthew kaufman
matthew@scruz.net
