Re: AT&T Public Policy Research -- hiring for cypherpunks

>Alan Olsen wrote:
>
>| >     Addresses will not be easily 'transferable.'  The IETF is
>| >discussing a 'Best Current Practices' document that talks about
>| >address portability.  Basically, it can't happen, because the routers
>| >only have so much memory, and the routers at the core of the internet
>| >can't keep in memory how to reach every one; there needs to be
>| >aggregation.  The only feasible aggregation seems to be provider
>| >based, ie, MCI, Alternet, and other large ISPs get blocks of
>| >addresses.  They give them to smaller companies, like got.net, which
>| >gives them to customers.  The result?  The core routers have a few
>| >more years.
>|
>| A good point. Having parts of subnet shifting around could be pretty painful
>| from an admin point of view.
>
>Its not an admin's point of view thats worrisome.  Whats worrisome is
>that the routers at the core of the net only have so much memory, and
>if the routing tables grow beyond that, we're all hosed, becuase the
>core of the internet will start thrashing.  So, in essense, you taking
>your network address with you when you switch providers ('address
>portability' causes costs that must be borne by the entire global
>internet.

Given that the world of telephony is moving towards Local Number Portability,
isn't it inevitable that the internet will be expected to provide the
equivalent functionality?  In the world of telephones it's being mandated
in the name of local loop competition, which presumably isn't a problem
for the internet.  But if someday i can move across the country and
keep my telephone number, i'd expect the same of my internet address.

That said, the issue of who manages the database is a significant one, but
more political/economic issue than technical.

        allen

DNS names are not IP numbers.

IP numbers are not portable, DNS names are.  You can move toad.com
anywhere on the network, but you can't move 140.174.2.1 anywhere on
the network.

Allen B. Ethridge wrote:

| >Its not an admin's point of view thats worrisome.  Whats worrisome is
| >that the routers at the core of the net only have so much memory, and
| >if the routing tables grow beyond that, we're all hosed, becuase the
| >core of the internet will start thrashing.  So, in essense, you taking
| >your network address with you when you switch providers ('address
| >portability' causes costs that must be borne by the entire global
| >internet.
| 
| Given that the world of telephony is moving towards Local Number Portability,
| isn't it inevitable that the internet will be expected to provide the
| equivalent functionality?  In the world of telephones it's being mandated
| in the name of local loop competition, which presumably isn't a problem
| for the internet.  But if someday i can move across the country and
| keep my telephone number, i'd expect the same of my internet address.

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

>Given that the world of telephony is moving towards Local Number Portability,
>isn't it inevitable that the internet will be expected to provide the
>equivalent functionality?

You have this today in the form of symbolic addresses mapped to an
IP number via DNS (domain name service).

Under IPng, all this becomes easier to manage in the long run, but
DNS has been around for a long time.  I'd bet that the phone company
stole the idea from the Internet... :-)

Loren

-- 
Loren J. Rittle (rittle@comm.mot.com)	PGP KeyIDs: 1024/B98B3249 2048/ADCE34A5
Systems Technology Research (IL02/2240)	FP1024:6810D8AB3029874DD7065BC52067EAFD
Motorola, Inc.				FP2048:FDC0292446937F2A240BC07D42763672
(708) 576-7794				Call for verification of fingerprints.