From: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:49:56 +0800
To: ethridge@Onramp.NET (Allen B. Ethridge)
Subject: Re: AT&T Public Policy Research -- hiring for cypherpunks
In-Reply-To: <v02140b00ad4978ac0d4a@[199.1.11.167]>
Message-ID: <199602160223.VAA00381@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


DNS names are not IP numbers.

IP numbers are not portable, DNS names are.  You can move toad.com
anywhere on the network, but you can't move 140.174.2.1 anywhere on
the network.

Allen B. Ethridge wrote:

| >Its not an admin's point of view thats worrisome.  Whats worrisome is
| >that the routers at the core of the net only have so much memory, and
| >if the routing tables grow beyond that, we're all hosed, becuase the
| >core of the internet will start thrashing.  So, in essense, you taking
| >your network address with you when you switch providers ('address
| >portability' causes costs that must be borne by the entire global
| >internet.
| 
| Given that the world of telephony is moving towards Local Number Portability,
| isn't it inevitable that the internet will be expected to provide the
| equivalent functionality?  In the world of telephones it's being mandated
| in the name of local loop competition, which presumably isn't a problem
| for the internet.  But if someday i can move across the country and
| keep my telephone number, i'd expect the same of my internet address.

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume