[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[Spencer Dawkins]

I do wonder what year the Internet first carried more *packets per second* 
than the current Internet carries *emails per second* - if that's clearly 
stated, I'm thinking Jack's point is that the only real difference is 
scaling.

And if that was the point, I agree!

Spencer


> But the real point here is that routing email, is fundamentally no 
> different than routing packets, except there is no TTL with email. All of 
> the same principles hold.
>
>
> At 7:40 -0400 2010/10/15, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>On 10/15/2010 12:12 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>>If "jack at 3kitty.org" is the example of forwarding you have in mind,
>>>that's not how it works.  When I change providers, I move my 3kitty.org
>>>service from one provider to another,
>>...
>>>I do have a bunch of xxx at 3kitty.org mailboxes, and they all must move
>>>together.
>>
>>
>>You are emulating a version of exactly the service I described towards the 
>>end of my note, modulo the extra forwarding hop. It's key feature is that 
>>it is independent of ISPs and it does not require their cooperation.
>>
>>However, as you note, all of the mailboxes must move together: granularity 
>>is at the domain name level, not the mailbox level.  To get per-user 
>>granularity, you have to encode it in the domain name, given the way email 
>>routing works.
>>
>>The reason you can have "direct" routing, without having to go through a 
>>forwarder is that you control the DNS MX record.  In effect that means an 
>>MX record per "customer", if not per "mailbox". Again, that's doable today 
>>and it is done today.  The challenge is scaling that model up to a mass 
>>market.  In effect, it means an MX per user (or maybe per family).  Yuch.
>>
>>d/
>>
>>ps.  I figure you're still unhappy we didn't adopt your encoding scheme 
>>when we did RFC 733...
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>   Dave Crocker
>>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>   bbiw.net
>