[122898] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Tue Feb 23 01:26:15 2010
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1266905164.24109.59.camel@ub-g-d2>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:25:42 -0500
To: gordslater@ieee.org
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:06 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 21:20 -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes
>> something=20
>> that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least
>> tolerably -=20
>> viable in the email infrastructure. Unfortunately, the details of =
the
>> two are=20
>> massively different in terms of architecture, service model, cost
>> structures and=20
>> operational skills.
>=20
> Good point Dave; for the mobile phone industry, number portability is =
an
> endpoint thing - no harder to change than a field in a
> billing/accounting database (the SIM#, keeping it very simple here), =
for
> email its a WHOLE lot more.=20
>=20
And who runs this database?
Local number portability requires a new database, one that didn't exist =
before, It's run by a neutral party and maps any phone number to a =
carrier and endpoint identifier. (In the US, that database is currently =
run by Neustar -- see =
http://www.neustar.biz/solutions/solutions-for/number-administration)
Figuring out how such a solution would work with email is left as an =
exercise for the reader.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
