North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Wed Mar 08 01:43:47 2006

--On March 7, 2006 1:38:50 PM -0500 John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:

At 1:08 PM -0800 3/6/06, Owen DeLong wrote:
I've got no opposition to issuing addresses based on some geotop. design,
simply because on the off chance it does provide useful aggregation, why
not.  OTOH, I haven't seen anyone propose geotop allocation as a policy
in the ARIN region (hint to those pushing for it).
Does anyone have statistics for the present prefix mobility experiment
in the US with phone number portability?  It would be interesting to
know what percent of personal and business numbers are now routed
permanently outside their original NPA assignment area...

Almost impossible to get statistics on this because of the influx
of portable VOIP devices and cellular phones.

However, if you're just talking about at the SS7 level, then, realistically,
LNP doesn't really provide NPA level portability of numbers.  At least
I don't know of any telcos allowing you to take your 408 number to the 212
area when you move.

If one presumes a modest movement rate across the entire population
of businesses, and locality for some percent of those moves (which may
be hidden from global visibility due to regional interconnects/exchanges),
would the resulting global routing table really be any larger then the
current AS allocation count?   It certainly would result in a lot of happy
businesses to have a PI allocation from a local LIR, even if portability
wasn't assured if they relocated to another state.

Interesting question.  I wonder if CAIDA has any statistics which
could provide illumination on this question.


p.s.  personal thoughts only, designed entirely to encourage
discussion... :-)

Attachment: pgp00020.pgp
Description: PGP signature