Re: address portability

[halkhatib <[e-mail]>]

The problem of portability can be resolved by strictly using domain names as
permanent identifiers of portable devices. The dynamically assigned IP address to a
portable device is then associated with the domain name using a DNS server with
dynamic update.

Although the use of domain names has so far been limited to "convenience", we believe
that it is also key to resolving the IPv4 address depletion problem and may eliminate
the need for NAT or IPv6.

Hasan Alkhatib

[e-mail] wrote:

> If you follow the telco solution if would make matters a total mess.  Basicly
> (going from memory here) if the phone number is no longer served by the ILEC
> then they callers ILEC must consult one of several (5?) Natial Phone # Portabilty
> Databases and find out the CLEC that has that number.  Then the ILEC passes
> the call off to the CLEC.
>
> If you translate this to the Internet then the system would first contact the
> backbone that was assigned the original block that the address belongs to.
> If that provider realized it no longer has that network then it contacts a master
> database (or seperate routing table) and forwards the packets over to the new
> provider for that network...  Obviously that idea stinks.  I think everyone
> can agree that portiblity is ideal but not even near practicle right now.
>
> -Mike
>
> >On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >
> >> At 09:12 AM 7/15/98 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Further, I would love to have a truly permanent, portable IP address(es).
>
> >> >I imagine lots of folks would.
> >>
> >> Right.  Lots of people would.  The problem is that at present, it's
> >> simply not technically feasible.  Portable IP addresses -- even on a
> >> corporate scale, where the units routed are networks, not hosts -- would
>
> >> imply a very large increase in the size of the global routing table.
> >
> >That really depends on what you consider a network. /30? /29? /24?
> >Certainly Sprint could remove their (now) assinine filter tomorrow, and I
> >don't think you would see a very large increase in the size of the global
> >routing table. Most providers announce /24's already anyways.
> >
> >At any rate, I wasn't saying that personalized, individual IP portability
> >is technically feasible at this time, just that it would be nice.
> >Perhaps we could ask the telco industry, who is working on what seems
> >to me to be a fairly similar issue with phone number portability. :-)
> >
> >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
> >Patrick Greenwell                                       [phone] v
> >                          Systems Administrator         [phone] f
> >                                NameSecure
> >\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> >
> >
> >
> >