[35770] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kavi, Prabhu)
Thu Mar 15 18:19:39 2001
Message-ID: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E563D3605@newman.tenornet.com>
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
To: "'Joe Abley'" <jabley@automagic.org>,
"Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
Cc: "'Hank Nussbacher'" <hank@att.net.il>,
Stephen Stuart <stuart@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:10:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting
domain names, people worry less about having an
interesting IP address, especially if they know it
will be portable.
Prabhu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM
> To: Kavi, Prabhu
> Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Statements against new.net?
>
>
> 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
>
