Salutations.
] >(Tim Bass)
] > Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and
] > politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems.
] >(Noel)
] >Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what
] >mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with.
] (Mike)
] This idea has been around *long* enough. When do we separate the name
] spaces? How about along with the IPng transition?
I ask the following question naievely because I don't know how to
ask it maturely.
What are the correlations and contrasts between our current
backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC
decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable.
Is there any correlation? I realize (think) that the FCC ruling
was localized to the US, perhaps not.....
I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to
play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine
this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of
address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider
and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate
routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get
a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are
portable. This bill passes.
It could happen.
Any thoughts?
-alan
Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net> writes:
>
> What are the correlations and contrasts between our current
> backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC
> decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable.
Correlations are manifold.
The most striking contrasts:
- Implementation on the 1-800 numbers was straightforward
- number space quite small
- routing fairly centralised
- on the level of the 1-800 address space there is
quite static routing, I understand that database updates
at that time were done by shipping magtapes
- The problem was local to one country and jurisdiction
due to the addressing hierarchy
> I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to
> play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine
> this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of
> address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider
> and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate
> routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get
> a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are
> portable. This bill passes.
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?
Daniel
In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was
vetoed in their senate so it never became law.
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?
In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was
vetoed in their senate so it never became law.
Florida. I'm not sure that it was vetoed, though, I'll have to check back.
(The premis of the argument put forth was a quote in the bible about a
certain oasis being 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across, so PId=c solve
for PI.)
Dave K. (rampant trivia maven)