Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues

On 2008/07/08 02:07, Duane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Otmar Lendl wrote:
> 
> > Who announces a length for a prefix? The carrier (or enterprise) who
> > operates the prefix. Given any leeway from the NRA, he is the only
> > one who definitly knows.
> > 
> > Any porting operation leads to someone to announce the length of the
> > number/prefix he just ported in. With open numbering plans, this ported
> > number does not need to have the same length as before.
> > 
> > Thus, taking open numbering plans into account, the size of the
> > BGP-like *whatever* table is O(#blocks + #ported numbers).
> 
> You are thinking about this wrong, the only time someone needs to
> announce a prefix is if the length is different, countries with fixed
> length dial plans would have very few entries.

If it were that easy everywhere and in all cases, we would not be
talking about this.

> Take Australia for example, I downloaded the entire file of allocated
> numbers from the regulator a while back and ran a script across it.

Doesn't surprise me. Now do the same trick for Austria and Germany.

In the .au case, your sole data-source is the NRA. If that would hold
everwhere, then Brian's proposal could work: these numbering-plans
could be easily aggregated into a single database. (Why the hell you
want to do something BGP like for that, I just can't grasp.)

The trouble, and the reason for the send-n proposal, is the fact that
the NRA of .uk does NOT know the number lengths for all numbers in its
country-code. The same holds for .at, .de and probably a few more.

/ol
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[email protected]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933
// nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H
// http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg