Porting static IP

paddyrg

custardy wrote: »

Yes but I don't see joe punter paying what they pay for those
The one you list is currently diverted to Edinburgh

Absolutely

If, however, I could pay maybe £300/5yrs plus a handling fee for a 'personalcode' as opposed to postcode, if you like, which would be a lookup for whatever physical address I had registered... Even if it is much longer than a postcode, but would constitute my whole address, I'd go for it. PaddyRG, 1945XYZ24K would be a great address ;-)

It would need a critical mass, there are all sorts of software updates that would make it hell on every website, but it could be a very marketable service. Shame nobody did it pre-internet which would have made it easier ;-)

custardy

paddyrg wrote: »

Absolutely

If, however, I could pay maybe £300/5yrs plus a handling fee for a 'personalcode' as opposed to postcode, if you like, which would be a lookup for whatever physical address I had registered... Even if it is much longer than a postcode, but would constitute my whole address, I'd go for it. PaddyRG, 1945XYZ24K would be a great address ;-)

It would need a critical mass, there are all sorts of software updates that would make it hell on every website, but it could be a very marketable service. Shame nobody did it pre-internet which would have made it easier ;-)

It wouldnt be £300 for 5 years
Just look at the costs for a basic PO box.
Plus you have the issue that manual mail, would have to be checked on route as to where it was meant to be going

paddyrg

custardy wrote: »

It wouldnt be £300 for 5 years
Just look at the costs for a basic PO box.
Plus you have the issue that manual mail, would have to be checked on route as to where it was meant to be going

No idea what a PO Box costs, so will take your word for it!
Just thinking how useful it would be though to only have one address for life. Most mail (as I understand it, stop me if I am wrong) has the postcode entered (manually if OCR can't do it, or not presorted) and converted to some kind of electronic form (those phosphor dots? Or something similar?) which then controls how it flows through the systems. I would envisage this to be an electronic lookup at that stage - OCR or manually type the personalcode, and by the time the item reaches the phosphor-dot printer the lookup has already translated it to the current real postcode (and number?).

Can't see it happening at the right price point, but you have to admit, it would be a great system!

custardy

paddyrg wrote: »

No idea what a PO Box costs, so will take your word for it!
Just thinking how useful it would be though to only have one address for life. Most mail (as I understand it, stop me if I am wrong) has the postcode entered (manually if OCR can't do it, or not presorted) and converted to some kind of electronic form (those phosphor dots? Or something similar?) which then controls how it flows through the systems. I would envisage this to be an electronic lookup at that stage - OCR or manually type the personalcode, and by the time the item reaches the phosphor-dot printer the lookup has already translated it to the current real postcode (and number?).

Can't see it happening at the right price point, but you have to admit, it would be a great system!

yup the machines could do it with little trouble
The issue is when you get to manual handled mail(and you would be surprised how much there is)
So if people took this up you would have multiple staff trying to look up where X item is going.
The 1st part of a post code is the routing part,the last part narrows it down.
So for example if you work in London Mail Centre and know Edinburgh is EH,then you can sort anything for Edinburgh quickly.
Its only at the Edinburgh Mail Centre that they break it down into 'towns EH1,EH2 etc
The sequencing machines take care of mech mail.
Having an address that isnt linked to any geographical point would be a nightmare for manual mail

spud17

paddyrg wrote: »

If, however, I could pay maybe £300/5yrs plus a handling fee for a 'personalcode' as opposed to postcode, if you like, which would be a lookup for whatever physical address I had registered...

So, you'd have a 'personalcode' with a link to a registered physical address? Presumably you would still then have to re-register whenever you moved.

Ummm, isn't that pretty much the same as I already have?

i.e. My name (probably not unique) linked to my address, which then makes it unique.

robatwork

RobTang wrote: »

It's more analogous to landline numbers, ie you cant keep it if you move to the other side of the country.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't a technical restriction, just something BT choose to do for expediency....or political reasons.....or financial ones

prowla

Anyway, the internet authorities sell address ranges to companies; the networking protocols allow routing and so-on to be performed by simple mathematical functions on the IP address/

Taking one address out of its context and plonking it with another provider would require changes to some of those fundamental rulles, and there isn't a process in place to take particular address and pretend it is somewhere else.

The design included two special address ranges (10.x.x.x and 192.x.x.x) which are allowed to be re-used within multiple companies networks, but which should never be visible to the outside world.

The correct way to engineer the solution is to use a name and DNS; that is what was designed and what is recommended.

Applying (misplaced) logic to say it should be possible and so-on isn't really going to help.

Sorry.

robatwork

prowla wrote: »

Anyway, the internet authorities sell address ranges to companies; the networking protocols allow routing and so-on to be performed by simple mathematical functions on the IP address/

Taking one address out of its context and plonking it with another provider would require changes to some of those fundamental rulles, and there isn't a process in place to take particular address and pretend it is somewhere else.

The design included two special address ranges (10.x.x.x and 192.x.x.x) which are allowed to be re-used within multiple companies networks, but which should never be visible to the outside world.

The correct way to engineer the solution is to use a name and DNS; that is what was designed and what is recommended.

Applying (misplaced) logic to say it should be possible and so-on isn't really going to help.

Sorry.

Which also goes for postcodes, phone numbers etc with an element of recognisable location. Ah well looks like it's talktalk for the foreseeable.

You forgot the much ignored class B 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 reserved range by the way