Re: address portability

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@namesecure.com>]

On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> At 09:12 AM 7/15/98 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> >Further, I would love to have a truly permanent, portable IP address(es). 
> >I imagine lots of folks would. 
> 
> Right.  Lots of people would.  The problem is that at present, it's
> simply not technically feasible.  Portable IP addresses -- even on a
> corporate scale, where the units routed are networks, not hosts -- would
> imply a very large increase in the size of the global routing table.

That really depends on what you consider a network. /30? /29? /24?
Certainly Sprint could remove their (now) assinine filter tomorrow, and I
don't think you would see a very large increase in the size of the global
routing table. Most providers announce /24's already anyways. 

At any rate, I wasn't saying that personalized, individual IP portability
is technically feasible at this time, just that it would be nice.
Perhaps we could ask the telco industry, who is working on what seems
to me to be a fairly similar issue with phone number portability. :-)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell				         (800) 299-1288 v
			   Systems Administrator	 (925) 377-1414 f
	                         NameSecure		     
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/