Not that I am advocating that the government should mandate something like IP portability, but if they did, it could force a sufficient rethink so that routing actually becomes much more scaleable because routing is forced to work based upon physical location. Look at how local number portability (LNP) works. Before the phone call is connected, a translation is made between the logical number and the actual number. The actual number is based upon geography, and consists of country-code, area-code, local exchange, and then physical port number. As a result, the routing tables in telephone networks are small. For example, if you are in the US and need to call the UK, the network only needs one entry for all telephone networks in the UK (plus a few more for redundancy). This is quite a contrast to how IP addresses have been allocated. And therefore, we have 96K and counting prefixes in the Internet with continuing exponential growth. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, this is not a new proposal, and probably could have been implemented years ago. Besides the obvious problems (is there sufficient address space allocatable to make this work), it would require an IP translation lookup at the beginning of each "call" to translate the logical IP address to the physical IP address. Prabhu
-----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:10 AM To: Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Statements against new.net?
At 23:39 14/03/01 -0800, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Do you see many scandals around people who own cool IP addresses? :)
IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of 16.1.16.1; I don't think lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope of the scandal remained relatively small.
Lets see, the US gov't mandated phone number portability. How long will it be before they mandate IP address portability? Then everyone will want their /32 to be portable. Even Junipers handling of 2.4M prefixes: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testing&doc_id=4 009&page_number=10 will begin to buckle.
-Hank
(The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.)
Stephen
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:59:53AM -0500, Kavi, Prabhu wrote:
Look at how local number portability (LNP) works. Before the phone call is connected, a translation is made between the logical number and the actual number. The actual number is based upon geography, and consists of country-code, area-code, local exchange, and then physical port number. As a result, the routing tables in telephone networks are small. For example, if you are in the US and need to call the UK, the network only needs one entry for all telephone networks in the UK (plus a few more for redundancy).
This translation/lookup function is only necessary once per call in a circuit-switched network. In a packet-switched network, it's required once per packet. For this reason, number portability on the internet and in the PSTN are quite different problems. Joe
participants (2)
-
Joe Abley -
Kavi, Prabhu