Re: Long-term viability: telephone numbers as aliases

["Thomas M. McGhan" <gill-simpson.com@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us>]

> From:          "Lloyd S. Etheredge" <letedge@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
> Organization:  Policy Science Center
> Current naming conventions probably cannot be sustained...
{snip}
> Most individuals/organizations already have unique identifiers (telephone numbers).
{snip}

The implied requirement for a one-to-one mapping of telephone number 
to IP dotted quad ( e.g. 111.222.333.444 ) may not be attainable.
Consider also the future transition to IPv6.

   quantity of telephone numbers assigned to a geographic location
     !!!= quantity of computer nodes requiring unique addressablity 
at the same location

   NOTE:   the symbol " !!!= " may be read as "is _e_x_t_r_e_m_e_l_y_ 
unequal to"

This is not a theoretical limitation:    both at my residence, and
 at my place of business, the number of networked 
computers exceeds the number of telephone lines by more than 
three (3) to one (1).   The other side of this imbalance is provided 
by the (still substantial) number of locations that do have assigned 
numbers and do not (yet?) have online systems requiring either IP or 
domain name addressability.

In my home zone, Baltimore, Maryland, the former area code
of 301 was split not long ago into two zones, one retaining the old
301 designation and another now using the new 410 area code.
Consider for a moment how disruptive this was, especially for 
businesses with 'hard-coded' pointers ( letterhead stationary, 
business cards, etc.), and analogize the dislocation into Internet
IP-space.

  Is it wise to create such a potentially harmful dependency 
on an (arbitrary) external numbering convention?  It may not even be 
possible.

Your point about the desireability of mnemonic value inherent in the
current human-language based aliases ( 'domain names' ) is well-taken.
 It points up the fact that what all this sturm und drang is about is
really superficial.  The right to 'own' an alphabetic alias
corresponding to the _r_e_a_l_ address that is the foundation for the
communications connectivity is certainly like the proverbial act of
'nailing jelly to the tree'.  The IETF process that produced the IPng
( IPv6 ) agreement was really where the functional imperitives were
determined.   We are just arguing ( oops, I meant 'having a lively,
energetic discussion' ) here about what color the icing on the cake
should be.  Oh, yes, and who should pay for it ... the devil in in 
the details.

Please forgive that this in not really a constructive criticism of 
your suggestion, in that I do not propose a superior alternative.
It is not my intention to 'pound down the nail', but rather to 
indicate some possible problems, for your further consideration.
tmcghan@gill-simpson.com