[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

Stream Service || Mark Scholten wrote:
> Hello Per,
> 
> That would mean that ALL Ip addresses could be taken to another
> provider/network and that it works. For example if a client has a /24 PA and
> they go to another network they need the option to take it with them.

This is why PI exists. Try using that as has been suggested already
several times by other people.

> At
> least if you compare it to phone number portability in the Netherlands.

If you are going to compare IP addresses to phone numbers, then you have
to make the Internet work like the Phone system, which would basically
mean a 'flow based' routing system: at connect time get the destination,
store this and presto keep on using that.

This does not work for the Internet as routes change (for phone you get
a disconnect when a route changes due to a fiber cut or some other such
event.

For the Internet, where a sender could just start spewing packets to a
million destinations, and possibly from a million sources, flow-based
routing does not work, take a small guess why.


Also, this is a POLICY list, not a TECHNICAL PROPOSAL list, for the
latter there is the IRTF, note the R for Research, as the IETF is not
even ready for these kind of changes (rrg WG comes in mind though).

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090725/c75f2b89/attachment.sig>