IP<->IP translation (was re: Statements against new.net?)

[Clayton Fiske <clay () bloomcounty org>]

I don't think the issue of portability is separate from that of
interesting names or addresses. One of the useful aspects of DNS
is that it is portable. If you renumber ("move") then you have
DNS (translation table) reflect your new address. And in the
interim, you have a temporary forward (borrowing the old IPs
until DNS propagation gets the new IPs into circulation all over).
As was indicated, the problem with this is that there's no
system to ensure that the forward is temporary.

If an IP<->IP translation system is implemented, this means that
a scalable method for updating everyone's tables must be devised.
What would stop people from caching translation tables the way
they cache DNS?

-c

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 04:10:14PM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote:
> 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-\.]+/.