nanog mailing list archives
RE: Statements against new.net?
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi () tenornetworks com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:59:53 -0500
Not that I am advocating that the government should mandate something like IP portability, but if they did, it could force a sufficient rethink so that routing actually becomes much more scaleable because routing is forced to work based upon physical location. Look at how local number portability (LNP) works. Before the phone call is connected, a translation is made between the logical number and the actual number. The actual number is based upon geography, and consists of country-code, area-code, local exchange, and then physical port number. As a result, the routing tables in telephone networks are small. For example, if you are in the US and need to call the UK, the network only needs one entry for all telephone networks in the UK (plus a few more for redundancy). This is quite a contrast to how IP addresses have been allocated. And therefore, we have 96K and counting prefixes in the Internet with continuing exponential growth. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, this is not a new proposal, and probably could have been implemented years ago. Besides the obvious problems (is there sufficient address space allocatable to make this work), it would require an IP translation lookup at the beginning of each "call" to translate the logical IP address to the physical IP address. Prabhu
-----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank () att net il] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:10 AM To: Stephen Stuart; nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Statements against new.net? At 23:39 14/03/01 -0800, Stephen Stuart wrote:Do you see many scandals around people who own cool IPaddresses? :)IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of16.1.16.1; I don'tthink lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope ofthe scandalremained 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=4
009&page_number=10 will begin to buckle. -Hank
(The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.) Stephen
Current thread:
- Re: Statements against new.net?, (continued)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Mark Kosters (Mar 28)
- Message not available
- RE: Statements against new.net? Ben Browning (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Scott Francis (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Adrian Chadd (Mar 15)
- DNS Control mike harrison (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS Control Jim Dixon (Mar 15)
- Re: DNS Control mike harrison (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Vadim Antonov (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Joe Abley (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Daniel Roesen (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 15)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Simon Higgs (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Stephen Stuart (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Simon Higgs (Mar 15)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Mathias Koerber (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Michael Shields (Mar 16)