[35817] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Fri Mar 16 06:03:14 2001
Message-ID: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039CD4@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Kavi, Prabhu'" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>,
'Joe Abley' <jabley@automagic.org>
Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher' <hank@att.net.il>,
Stephen Stuart <stuart@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:39:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kavi, Prabhu [mailto:prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM
> To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu
> Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: Statements against new.net?
>
>
>
> 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
> >
>
