[35792] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mdevney@teamsphere.com)
Fri Mar 16 00:13:56 2001
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:46:34 -0800 (PST)
From: <mdevney@teamsphere.com>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'Kavi, Prabhu'" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>,
"'Joe Abley'" <jabley@automagic.org>,
"'Hank Nussbacher'" <hank@att.net.il>,
Stephen Stuart <stuart@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039CD4@condor.mhsc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103151845180.9903-100000@core.teamplay.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> You're kidding, right? After what MHSC just went through, if someone were to
> offer a routable/portable /24, my only response would be to ask where you
> wanted the body delivered. It would be warm and cooling upon delivery.
>
> Portable/routable IP addresses are MORE desireable than domain names.
>
Yes -- but no one IP is any more or less desirable than any other IP,
assuming both are portable, routable, and routed. Not so with domain
names. Anyone want to guess how much sex.com would sell for? As opposed
to, say, jkl.cx ...
Matthew Devney
