North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
--On March 7, 2006 1:38:50 PM -0500 John Curran <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
/John p.s. personal thoughts only, designed entirely to encourage discussion... :-)