![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation
From: Tony Li <tli () juniper net>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Another way to say it is that monopoly is necessary to take advantage of geographic addressing. Baby Bells do that now (with the area codes). I'm wondering what is their idea of migrating into competitive market (centralized database?) My understanding is that they used mandated exchange points to deal with the deregulation of IXC's, but this only solves one half of the problem. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean Donelan (Nov 10)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Geoff Huston (Nov 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean Donelan (Nov 16)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 16)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean M. Doran (Nov 17)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 17)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 16)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean M. Doran (Nov 17)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Kent W. England (Nov 20)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Vadim Antonov (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Tony Li (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean Doran (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Vadim Antonov (Nov 21)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Sean M. Doran (Nov 23)
- Message not available
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 17)