You're kidding, right? After what MHSC just went through, if someone were to offer a routable/portable /24, my only response would be to ask where you wanted the body delivered. It would be warm and cooling upon delivery. Portable/routable IP addresses are MORE desireable than domain names.

-----Original Message----- From: Kavi, Prabhu [mailto:prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:10 PM To: 'Joe Abley'; Kavi, Prabhu Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Statements against new.net?

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