[35747] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Thu Mar 15 13:56:35 2001
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:08:33 -0500
From: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
To: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher' <hank@att.net.il>,
Stephen Stuart <stuart@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010315130833.B93@buddha.home.automagic.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E563D3603@newman.tenornet.com>; from prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com on Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:41:56PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote:
> No, think of this as a resolution step that happens
> in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for
> IP<->IP address translation.
>
> At the beginning of a session, a translation request
> is made to resolve to the logical address (and all
> IP addresses are considered logical at first, just
> like all telephone addresses are considered logical
> until they are resolved). The translation is made,
> and the physical IP address is cached and used for
> the session.
>
> Obviously, end stations do not request this
> translation today so it would first require a
> protocol definition.
This suffers from exactly the same problems wrt address portability
that DNS does, doesn't it? Looks to me like you just described DNS,
but used an IP address instead of /[a-zA-Z0-9-\.]+/.
Joe
