[2451] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address "portability"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Sat Apr 6 08:50:57 1996
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: justin@erols.com (Justin W. Newton)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 08:47:39 -0500 (EST)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960405233958.006bd7c0@pop.erols.com> from "Justin W. Newton" at Apr 5, 96 06:39:58 pm
> At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Uhm, Cisco, you hear that?
I don't see it as being anything that Cisco can deal with. Probably the
IETF would be a better place...
Or, to put it another way, you can already advertise /32s using Ciscos.
If people listen to them, you have portable single IP addresses...
> Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay caught up.
> Internet Architect *
> Erol's Internet Services *
Avi
