Re: Why people by NATs

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

 



On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:33:54 +0100, "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" said:

> But why to spend time and money and to take risks to change something which 
> is not broken. IPv6 has no problem in keeping the same host numbers if the 
> used addressing plan uses a numbering scheme designed with that purpose in 
> mind, like the telephone numbering scheme. You change of telephone 
> providers - or use several at the same time - without changing number.

That's because the phone number is more akin to a DNS name than an IP address.

I'm pretty sure that if you investigate the insides of how the telco system
makes that transparent provider-change work, you'd not be as interested in
using it as an example.  (Or did you *want* to go back to the days when routing
tables were shipped around and installed on the fuzzballs twice a week?  I got
tired of *that* back in 1984.  And back then, the routing tables were only a
few hundred lines long, not the 150K routes we have now...)


Attachment: pgpDfidxBvERX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]