Address "portability"

Jeremy Porter jerry at
Sat Apr 6 04:07:09 UTC 1996

>At 06:39 PM 4/5/96 -0500, Justin W. Newton wrote:
>>At 12:32 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>The California PUC has approved local phone competition within California,
>>>with the requirement the phone number portability (between carriers) be
>>>fully implemented as soon as possible. Making your phone number stay the
>>>same no matter whether you're a PacBell or MFS or TCI customer is exactly
>>>the same problem as making IP addresses portable... just wait until ISPs
>>>are regulated, and they get the same mandate.
>>Uhm, Cisco, you hear that?
>Um, and pray tell, what exactly is cisco supposed to do about this?
>I'll write my congresscritter if you write yours.  :-)
>- paul

Matthew Kaufman, is making a bad analogy.  The phone network 
is completely static routed, there is current VERY high
level of aggregation.  There is NO capacity to
reroute connections on the fly.  Backup paths
exist, but if you trunk gets cut, your circuit will go out.

The phone network is source routed.  The source switch
finds a path to the destination number.

So Justin wants Cisco to redisgn the Internet, and take
out all of the "good" features of connectionless, active
routing networks.

And as someone else remarked, the CA PUC will for its nexct trick
make PI equal to 3.

And I'll bet anyone on this list, a nice lunch, that
the number protablity will be based on phone companies selling each other
"minutes" and settling out the money.
Of course Bob Metcalf, might just like for the Internet
to be run this way.

Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry at
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  |  1-800-968-8750  |  512-339-6094

More information about the NANOG mailing list