Address "portability"

Matthew Kaufman matthew at
Fri Apr 5 20:32:57 UTC 1996

Original message <CMM. at Junk.Stupi.SE>
From: Peter Lothberg <roll at>
Date: Apr  5, 12:05
Subject: Re: Address "portability"
> > 
> > What is the general consensus of this group regarding the "portability" of 
> > addresses in the 204/8 and 205/8 range?  
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Eric Kozowski             Structured Network Systems, Inc.
> > kozowski at   Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
> > (503)656-3530 Voice       "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
> > (800)881-0962 Voice       56k to DS1
> > 
> Portable addresses is an illusion, as it does no scale. 
> Give me a call when you convinced the phone_company to make my phone number 
> work in
> California. 
> --Peter
>-- End of excerpt from Peter Lothberg

The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
are regulated, and they get the same mandate.

-matthew kaufman
 matthew at

More information about the NANOG mailing list