[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[Robert Bonomi]

> From ppml-bounces at arin.net  Fri Jul 27 11:15:03 2007
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:14:27 -0400
> From: "William Herrin" <arin-contact at dirtside.com>
> To: "Keith W. Hare" <Keith at jcc.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration
>
> On 7/27/07, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com> wrote:
> > With some amount of push from customers and lawmakers, the telephone
> > companies have moved from Provider Agregatable phone numbers to Provider
> > Independent phone numbers.
>
> That's a great point Keith. And here's the nasty part: because they
> waited until the issue was forced, they had to make it fully PI,
> individual number by individual number. They lost the option to use
> some sort of sensible grouping strategy.

When provider assigments to end users are individual numbers, there
is _NO_OTHER_ way to implement 'portability'.  

For some strange reason, it is't real portability if it is "you can
take your number with you to the new phone company, but -only- if you
can convince the 9 other people in your 'group' to move to that company
at the same time.

It is also worth noting that 'bigger' telephony customers "didn't give a 
hoot" about number portability --  their primary expense is -outgoing- calls,
for which 'stability' of the  originating number doesn't matter.  It is 
'trivial' to leave the 'public' incoming number with one phone company, 
while making outgoing calls through a different phone company.  *IF* you 
have more than a few lines, that is.  And, if you have your own PBX you have 
'nat' built in, so 'renumbering' outgoing lines is a 'non-issue'.


It was the -little- users -- equivalent to a /30 or maybe a /29 -- that 
drove the telco PI situation.