North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 news
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Paul Jakma wrote:
If you want to focus on the differences between IP and POTS/GSM, sure, they're completely different. However, the point is to examine the abstract model for how telcos manage to achieve number portability without global-scope exchange of subscriber information and see what, if any, techniques could apply to IP.Eg, given some arbitrary area:
- RIR assigns a prefix to that area
- For that area, for the set of ISPs providing service in that
area (the area-ISP set) which are all peered with each other (eg at some IX in or near the area
concerned), each ISP:
- announces the area prefix as far and wide as they can
(doing so will be an advantage for settlement with the
other area-ISP set ISPs)
- exchanges very very specific routes of:
area-site -> AS
with the other area-ISP set ISPs (if they peer locally,
they can keep these very specific routes local too)
- keep track of how much traffic to the area-prefix is handed
off to other area-ISP set ISPs (and to which, obviously),
and how much is received.
- periodically, for every other area-ISP, reconcile traffic
handed off / received and either send your or wait for
their invoice as appropriate.
Fraught with some difficulties obviously. (Politics of settlement, particularly when there is no benevolant entity to arbitrate and/or impose - before you ever get to the question of how to define an "area").
If it seems too difficult and the status quo is preferred - no worries, the hosts will figure out some kind of indirection. Bit less efficient than if ISPs would route natively/locally, but hey it won't require any difficult decisions and co-ordination in the ISP community.
And maybe that'd be for the best. ;)
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
He who hesitates is not only lost, but several miles from
the next freeway exit.