[35723] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Thu Mar 15 09:14:34 2001
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010315160522.00aa3320@max.ibm.net.il>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:09:37 +0200
To: Stephen Stuart <stuart@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>
In-Reply-To: <200103150739.f2F7d8f11430@hi.tech.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 23:39 14/03/01 -0800, Stephen Stuart wrote:
> > Do you see many scandals around people who own cool IP addresses? :)
>
>IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of 16.1.16.1; I don't
>think lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope of the scandal
>remained relatively small.
Lets see, the US gov't mandated phone number portability. How long will it
be before they mandate IP address portability? Then everyone will want
their /32 to be portable. Even Junipers handling of 2.4M prefixes:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testing&doc_id=4009&page_number=10
will begin to buckle.
-Hank
>(The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.)
>
>Stephen
