nanog mailing list archives
Re: Statements against new.net?
From: Joe Abley <jabley () automagic org>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:08:33 -0500
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
Current thread:
- RE: Statements against new.net?, (continued)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Roeland Meyer (Mar 15)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Roeland Meyer (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)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Joe Abley (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Shawn McMahon (Mar 15)
- IP<->IP translation (was re: Statements against new.net?) Clayton Fiske (Mar 15)
- RE: Statements against new.net? mdevney (Mar 15)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Patrick Greenwell (Mar 15)