Re: AT&T Public Policy Research -- hiring for cypherpunks

[ethridge@Onramp.NET (Allen B. Ethridge)]

>Alan Olsen wrote:
>
>| >     Addresses will not be easily 'transferable.'  The IETF is
>| >discussing a 'Best Current Practices' document that talks about
>| >address portability.  Basically, it can't happen, because the routers
>| >only have so much memory, and the routers at the core of the internet
>| >can't keep in memory how to reach every one; there needs to be
>| >aggregation.  The only feasible aggregation seems to be provider
>| >based, ie, MCI, Alternet, and other large ISPs get blocks of
>| >addresses.  They give them to smaller companies, like got.net, which
>| >gives them to customers.  The result?  The core routers have a few
>| >more years.
>|
>| A good point. Having parts of subnet shifting around could be pretty painful
>| from an admin point of view.
>
>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.

That said, the issue of who manages the database is a significant one, but
more political/economic issue than technical.

        allen