RE: Statements against new.net?

["Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi () tenornetworks com>]

Yes it does, but unlike the land grab for interesting 
domain names, people worry less about having an
interesting IP address, especially if they know it
will be portable.

Prabhu


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley () automagic org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:09 PM
> To: Kavi, Prabhu
> Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Statements against new.net?
>
>
> 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