[35732] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Thu Mar 15 10:46:48 2001
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:37:18 -0500
From: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
To: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher' <hank@att.net.il>,
Stephen Stuart <stuart@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010315103717.I22919@buddha.home.automagic.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E563D3601@newman.tenornet.com>; from prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com on Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:59:53AM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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
