[35742] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kavi, Prabhu)
Thu Mar 15 13:02:34 2001
Message-ID: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E563D3603@newman.tenornet.com>
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
To: "'Joe Abley'" <jabley@automagic.org>,
"Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
Cc: "'Hank Nussbacher'" <hank@att.net.il>,
Stephen Stuart <stuart@mfnx.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:41:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
No, think of this as a resolution step that happens
in a matter analogous to DNS resolution, but for
IP<->IP address translation.
At the beginning of a session, a translation request
is made to resolve to the logical address (and all
IP addresses are considered logical at first, just
like all telephone addresses are considered logical
until they are resolved). The translation is made,
and the physical IP address is cached and used for
the session.
Obviously, end stations do not request this
translation today so it would first require a
protocol definition. Then it require changes in
edge network infrastructure and/or client software,
depending upon where the translation makes the most
sense. This change, if ever attempted, would be
highly painful, just like LNP was. But if you
are forced to go through the pain, might was well
try to solve the resulting routing problem too.
Prabhu
-----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@automagic.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:37 AM
> To: Kavi, Prabhu
> Cc: 'Hank Nussbacher'; Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Statements against new.net?
>
>
> 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
>
