Re: Routing wars pending?

Geert Jan de Groot <GeertJan.deGroot@ripe.net> Tue, 21 November 1995 11:56 UTC

Message-Id: <199511201953.UAA00300@berklix.ripe.net>
To: Keith Mitchell <keith@pipex.com>
Cc: big-internet@munnari.oz.au, cidrd@iepg.org
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Geert Jan de Groot <GeertJan.deGroot@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: Routing wars pending?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:16:12 GMT." <199511201316.NAA11997@pipe.pipex.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:53:20 +0100
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:16:12 +0000  Keith Mitchell wrote:
> In <199511171540.KAA04630@faline.bellcore.com>, <little@faline.bellcore.com> 
wrote:
> A better telephony example perhaps is that of GSM roaming, where
> there is no mapping from a a "logical" 800 number to a physical
> geographic code identifying the end-point. Instead the phone is still
> addressed by it's home country and area code, even when it is
> in another country. I think the routing is currently done by host
> redirection.
> 
> I suspect that currently roamed mobile phone use is sufficiently rare
> that there are not scaling problems with this approach at present,
> but with GSM growth comparable to Internet growth I think they may
> have a few headaches ahead...

GSM, at least in the Netherlands, uses the priciple that if you're out
of your 'region', that you pay the transit between the home-country and the
place you are. E.g. if a Dutch subscriber is in France and receives a call
from the Netherlands, then the caller pays mobile phone rates for a Dutch
mobile call, and the GSM owner pays a rate from the Netherlands to France,
i.e. the GSM owner pays for its mobility and the extra transit involved.

We could do the same with IP (encapsulating it), but somehow I feel that
this approach will never be popular, either with GSM or with IP...

Geert Jan

Re: Routing wars pending? Geert Jan de Groot