[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

We explained how to do it.

You jack up the phone number space and make them application names. 
But you let the users think nothing has changed.

Then you slide another address space under it that looks just like 
phone numbers but are used for routing.  You maintain a mapping from 
the first assignments to these numbers, so that *what* you want to 
get to is distinct from "where" it is.

In the case of cell phones there is one more set of mappings to the 
addresses of the cell towers.

The point is IP addresses aren't really what you want for application 
names.  If you start using them as such which is what "number 
portability" implies then you need some thing else and you are into 
an  infinite regress!  Something has to tell you where the whats are! 

As far as your contention that at one time flying seemed impossible. 
This isn't in that category.

This is in the category that once it appeared that perpetual motion 
was impossible. Then they discovered the Second Law of Thermodynamics 
and knew that it really was impossible.

Take care,

At 21:26 -0500 2010/10/14, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>On 10/14/2010 8:59 PM, John Day wrote:
>>>On 10/14/2010 8:24 PM, John Day wrote:
>>>>Sorry, what was true of telephone numbers?
>>>>>We used to think that was true of telephone numbers.
>>>("these concepts do not apply to addresses")
>>We already went though this. Although perhaps too indirectly.
>>The cell phone system changed phone numbers from being
>>physical-connection-endpoint-addresses into application names and put
>>other addressing schemes underneath the phone numbers so tehy could
>>route to them and didn't tell anyone. It became so useful, that it was
>>decided to make all telephone numbers application names.
>>So what would you like to do? Make IPv6 addresses application names?
>>Then what would be put under them to be addresses so we could route to
>>them? MAC addresses? That would be really neat. Then we could route
>>based on the manufacturer who built the interface rather than the
>>provider where the interface was. That ought to work really well!
>I don't know how to do it.
>When I was a Pacific Telephone employee long ago, we didn't know how 
>to do it with telephone numbers either.
>Once upon a time we said iot was impossible to fly.  Then to fly 
>across oceans.  Then across space.
>Now we are just down to we don't want to.
>But if we did, we could.  Somehow.