Mailing List Archive

>
>
> What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of
> addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range?
>

All address prefixes are portable. Their routability by any
given transit provider is always suspect and varies from time
to time.
This nomenclature has been foisted on the unsuspecting by well
intentioned people. This idea fosters the myth of global
reachability for any given prefix.

--
--bill

On Thursday, March 21, 1996 7:13 AM, Bill Manning[SMTP:bmanning@isi.edu] wrote:
@>
@>
@> What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of
@> addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range?
@>
@
@ All address prefixes are portable. Their routability by any
@ given transit provider is always suspect and varies from time
@ to time.
@ This nomenclature has been foisted on the unsuspecting by well
@ intentioned people. This idea fosters the myth of global
@ reachability for any given prefix.
@
@--
@--bill
@
@
@@@@@@@@@

WWW.ISI.EDU Has a New IP Address!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of March 21, 1996 10:30PDT, the ISI web server has a new IP address. If you have reached this page, it is because of one of the following reasons:

1.You have referred to www.isi.edu by its IP address, which has changed to 128.9.176.20, 2.You have referenced www.isi.edu and your Domain Name Service still has the old IP address. If this symptom persists after a resonable amount of time, please contact your system administrator with the information from number 1. 3.You have made some other reference that does not point to our new web server.

To get to our new server, use:

http://www.isi.edu/ if you landed here using the old IP address

or

http://128.9.176.20/ if you've already tried www.isi.edu (see reason number 2 above).


Please make a note of this change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and Questions regarding this site may be sent to action@isi.edu.

@@@@@@@@@@

# ping www.iana.org
PING VENERA.ISI.EDU (128.9.176.32): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 128.9.176.32: icmp_seq=0 ttl=246 time=90.023 ms
64 bytes from 128.9.176.32: icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=80.949 ms
64 bytes from 128.9.176.32: icmp_seq=4 ttl=246 time=85.716 ms
64 bytes from 128.9.176.32: icmp_seq=5 ttl=246 time=80.661 ms
64 bytes from 128.9.176.32: icmp_seq=6 ttl=246 time=86.847 ms
^C
--- VENERA.ISI.EDU ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 28% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 80.661/84.839/90.023 ms

@@@@@@@@@@

Portability in action....it looks like IANA has moved 12 doors down the street...


--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL 60563

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

>From: matthew@scruz.net (Matthew Kaufman)

>>From: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>
>> Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number
>> work in California.

>The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
>with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
>fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
>same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
>the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
>are regulated, and they get the same mandate.

>-matthew kaufman
> matthew@scruz.net

Which only shows how stupid American elected representatives are.
(No, i do not think they are any smarter in any other country).

--vadim

Peter,

> > What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of
> > addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range?
>
> Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale.
>
> Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my
> phone number work in California.

Maybe this is considered poorman's portability, but:
When I take my GSM-phone to Hong Kong (or to Stockholm) my grandmother
is still able to give me a call while I am there on the same number as
when I am at home... Address portability at work...

__

Erik-Jan.

>
> What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of
> addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range?
>
>
> --
> Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc.
> kozowski@structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
> (503)656-3530 Voice "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
> (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1
>


Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale.

Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number work in
California.

--Peter

Original message <CMM.0.90.0.828702375.roll@Junk.Stupi.SE>
From: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>
Date: Apr 5, 12:05
Subject: Re: Address "portability"
>
> >
> > What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of
> > addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc.
> > kozowski@structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
> > (503)656-3530 Voice "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
> > (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1
> >
>
>
> Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale.
>
> Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number
> work in
> California.
>
> --Peter
>-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg


The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
are regulated, and they get the same mandate.

-matthew kaufman
matthew@scruz.net

> >
> > Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale.
> >
> > Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number
> > work in
> > California.
> >
> > --Peter
> >-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg
>
>
> The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
> with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
> fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
> same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
> the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
> are regulated, and they get the same mandate.
>
> -matthew kaufman
> matthew@scruz.net
>

Not quite. If I move today from San Francisco to San Jose, I have to renumber
because of area codes. This provides first level hierarchy, which the Internet
doesn't have (actually second, country codes are the first). The phone
companies also have settlements worked out, such that a cutout costs the
group getting the cutout, not the group who has the base or the IXC. Phone
routing are vastly more restrictive than IP routing.

Jerry

Original message <199604052143.NAA28351@gw.home.vix.com>
From: scharf@vix.com (Jerry Scharf)
Date: Apr 5, 13:43
Subject: Re: Address "portability"
>
> > >
> > > Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale.
> > >
> > > Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number
> > > work in
> > > California.
> > >
> > > --Peter
> > >-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg
> >
> >
> > The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
> > with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
> > fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
> > same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
> > the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
> > are regulated, and they get the same mandate.
> >
> > -matthew kaufman
> > matthew@scruz.net
> >
>
> Not quite. If I move today from San Francisco to San Jose, I have to renumber
> because of area codes. This provides first level hierarchy, which the Internet
> doesn't have (actually second, country codes are the first). The phone
> companies also have settlements worked out, such that a cutout costs the
> group getting the cutout, not the group who has the base or the IXC. Phone
> routing are vastly more restrictive than IP routing.
>
> Jerry
>-- End of excerpt from Jerry Scharf

1. If everyone in area code 213 (for instance) decided to exercise number
portability and move their existing number to a new provider, that'd be
about 3.7 million "host routes" with NO possibility of aggregation.
That's far more routes than are in my border routers (by about 100X)
(Presumably CAPs in LATAs with lots of area codes are going to want to
hold internal routes for ALL of the local area codes, so they can do
complete bypass... in the Los Angeles area that'd at least quadruple this
routing table requirement)

2. The costs of portability in the latest proposals I've read are to be
shared between the existing and the new providers, with the visible end-user
cost of "keeping your number" relatively low

3. It may be technically stupid, but it is what consumers want, and the PUC
and FCC are on their side. I still won't be surprised when the "number
portability" precedent gets picked up by a regulatory agency and forced on
the Internet, at least within the United States.

-matthew kaufman
matthew@scruz.net

> 1. If everyone in area code 213 (for instance) decided to exercise number
> portability and move their existing number to a new provider, that'd be
> about 3.7 million "host routes" with NO possibility of aggregation.
^^^
Excuse my miscalculation here... I believe that's closer to 8 million,...
finger slipped while calculating.

-matthew

At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

>The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
>with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
>fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
>same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
>the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
>are regulated, and they get the same mandate.

Uhm, Cisco, you hear that?


Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay caught up.
Internet Architect *
Erol's Internet Services *

At 06:39 PM 4/5/96 -0500, Justin W. Newton wrote:

>At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>>The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
>>with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
>>fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
>>same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
>>the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
>>are regulated, and they get the same mandate.
>
>Uhm, Cisco, you hear that?
>
>

Um, and pray tell, what exactly is cisco supposed to do about this?

I'll write my congresscritter if you write yours. :-)

- paul

Yes, but try to use a Euro-GSM phone in the US.

the bands differ by 100 MHz and to date, I'm not aware of
a frequency-agile phone that works to both "standards"

-mo

>At 06:39 PM 4/5/96 -0500, Justin W. Newton wrote:
>>At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
>>>with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
>>>fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
>>>same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
>>>the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
>>>are regulated, and they get the same mandate.
>>
>>Uhm, Cisco, you hear that?
>>
>
>Um, and pray tell, what exactly is cisco supposed to do about this?
>
>I'll write my congresscritter if you write yours. :-)
>
>- paul

Matthew Kaufman, is making a bad analogy. The phone network
is completely static routed, there is current VERY high
level of aggregation. There is NO capacity to
reroute connections on the fly. Backup paths
exist, but if you trunk gets cut, your circuit will go out.

The phone network is source routed. The source switch
finds a path to the destination number.

So Justin wants Cisco to redisgn the Internet, and take
out all of the "good" features of connectionless, active
routing networks.

And as someone else remarked, the CA PUC will for its nexct trick
make PI equal to 3.

And I'll bet anyone on this list, a nice lunch, that
the number protablity will be based on phone companies selling each other
"minutes" and settling out the money.
Of course Bob Metcalf, might just like for the Internet
to be run this way.


--
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094
http://www.fc.net

> At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> >The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
> >with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
> >fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
> >same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
> >the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
> >are regulated, and they get the same mandate.
>
> Uhm, Cisco, you hear that?

I don't see it as being anything that Cisco can deal with. Probably the
IETF would be a better place...

Or, to put it another way, you can already advertise /32s using Ciscos.
If people listen to them, you have portable single IP addresses...

> Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay caught up.
> Internet Architect *
> Erol's Internet Services *

Avi

On Apr 5, 21:00, Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos@surfnet.nl> wrote:
> When I take my GSM-phone to Hong Kong (or to Stockholm) my grandmother
> is still able to give me a call while I am there on the same number as
> when I am at home... Address portability at work...

Not really, your phone doesn't have a routable number as such. It
has a name which happens to be a number; and it can be reached
outside its natural habitat after 30-90 seconds of searching,
probing, and call setup. The Internet already handles name
portability, even much better than the phone system. And there's no
end to what could be done if dial-up users were charged two dollars
per minute for out-of-habitat traffic, whether voice or 9.6kbit data.

--
------ ___ --- Per G. Bilse, Mgr Network Operations Ctr
----- / / / __ ___ _/_ ---- EUnet Communications Services B.V.
---- /--- / / / / /__/ / ----- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL
--- /___ /__/ / / /__ / ------ tel: +31 20 6233803, fax: +31 20 6224657
--- ------- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865
--- Connecting Europe since 1982 --- http://www.EU.net; e-mail: bilse@EU.net

> Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale.
>
> --Peter


All addresses are portable. The real trick is "what level of
effort."

--
--bill