[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[Kevin Kargel]

I think you guys don't understand how the area code system on telephones
work.  With local number portability you do not get to just magically
move a number to a different area and everyone knows where to find you.
The area code you moved is still assigned to the home switch for the
original area.  When you dial that number you are first connected to the
original switch.  That switch then has to look up the ported number in
its database, decide which switch the number really belongs to and
redirects you to the appropriate switch.

LNP made telephone routing more complicated, increased call failure, and
increased hardware cost.  All this was done to accommodate a feature
that was mandated to the telco's by the government.  This increased
complexity and hardware comes at a cost.  You can safely assume the
telco's are not going to absorb that added cost out of the goodness of
their hearts.  The added cost will be passed on to the provider.  

The same thing will happen in the TCP world if "local IP portability" is
forced and aggrability is abandoned.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 5:07 PM
> To: John Santos; ppml at arin.net
> Cc: William Herrin; Keith W. Hare
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration
> 
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com]
> >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 1:44 PM
> >To: ppml at arin.net
> >Cc: William Herrin; Keith W. Hare; Ted Mittelstaedt
> >Subject: Re: [ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf 
> >> >Of William Herrin
> >> >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:14 AM
> >> >To: Keith W. Hare
> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I think we have carried this analogy to the point of silliness.
> >> 
> >> Area codes still create groups.  But more importantly, the phone 
> >> number can be an abstraction because it is only used 1 time during 
> >> the call - at the beginning for the phone switches to 
> setup the call.  
> >> Once that is complete and the query into the lookup table that 
> >> matches the PI phone number to the internal routing number used by 
> >> the phone company  is complete, the table isn't queried again.
> >> 
> >> With IP traffic, to implement something similar to a PI IP 
> address, 
> >> you would have to have every non-edge router on the 
> Internet make a 
> >> query to a lookup table of some sort, and they would have to do it 
> >> for every packet.  For a VoIP phone call that might have 10,000 
> >> packets in the entire call that passes through the routers during 
> >> call existence.  You can't do a query for each packet.  
> That is why 
> >> IP is still going to require some sort of "sensible grouping"
> >> and why telephone numbers don't.
> >
> >Not really.  The first non-edge router could look up a "physical"
> >IP address, cache it, and forward all packets for the "virtual" PI 
> >address to that physical address (encapsulated with the original 
> >virtual address still attached.)  The "physical" address could be 
> >either the current provider-provided PA address of the 
> destination or 
> >the address of a router "close" to the destination.  If its 
> a router at 
> >that address it would then extract the original packet and 
> forward it 
> >to the (close-by) destination.  None of the intermediate 
> routers would 
> >have to know anything about the destination PI address.  The 
> only time 
> >you would need to do a second lookup of an established (i.e.
> >recently used) connection is if the cache overflowed, or the 
> >destination physical address died, or if the destination 
> router decided 
> >there was a better route to the virtual destination address.
> >
> >(N.B. This encapsulation could either ipv4 or ipv6 packets and the 
> >virtual source/destinations could also be either ipv4 or 6.)
> >
> >This is pretty much how cell phones work (where the "virtual"
> >10-digit phone number gets re-routed every time it changes 
> cells), and 
> >how number portability works for regular PSTN numbers, at a 
> huge degree 
> >of abstraction.
> >
> >Telephone numbers don't require grouping precisely because a lookup 
> >like this is done at call origination time (and for cell numbers, on 
> >the relatively rare occasions when a phone moves to a different
> >cell.)  I'm not as familier with IP routing, but I get the 
> impression 
> >the routing folks are looking into exactly this sort of thing.  It 
> >would be enormously useful for things like mobile VOIP.
> >
> 
> Once again, I think this analogy has been carried too far.  
> Now your saying that all routers on the Internet would have 
> to be redesigned for this analogy to work.  Did the telephone 
> network have to be completely redesigned and all phone 
> switches replaced for PI?
> 
> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>