Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net> writes:
What are the correlations and contrasts between our current backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable.
Correlations are manifold. The most striking contrasts: - Implementation on the 1-800 numbers was straightforward - number space quite small - routing fairly centralised - on the level of the 1-800 address space there is quite static routing, I understand that database updates at that time were done by shipping magtapes - The problem was local to one country and jurisdiction due to the addressing hierarchy
I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are portable. This bill passes.
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they? Daniel