[89321] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Tue Mar 7 13:39:24 2006
In-Reply-To: <F7CD00563091963B5168EE51@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:38:50 -0500
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com>
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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...
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.
/John
p.s. personal thoughts only, designed entirely to encourage discussion... :-)
