nanog mailing list archives
Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design
From: Joe Hamelin <joe () nethead com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 19:43:27 -0700
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:14 PM, John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's lose this silly phone number portability nonsense and use phone numbers as routes.
You do not want to go down the hell hole that is SS7. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design, (continued)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Steven Noble (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv4 address length technical design Paul Vinciguerra (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Jay Ashworth (Oct 07)
- Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design John Levine (Oct 06)
- Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design Joe Hamelin (Oct 06)
- Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Tony Finch (Oct 08)