[VoIP] Active/Inactive Swiotches & Codes (was - Status monitoring)
Ian Jolly
ian at uax.org.uk
Mon Aug 27 07:53:48 CDT 2007
We did have a "problem" in the UK earlier this year.
A brief explanation of CNET numbering in the UK may help.
We decided to adopt the old Subscriber Trunk Dialling (DDD) codes previously
used in the UK - we had a change in all the geographic codes in the UK in
1995 thus leaving us to adopt the old codes. We also have a situation where
a number of electro-mechanical switches in the UK are those that previous
were in use serving various villages and small towns in the UK. Each of
these switches had its own individual STD code.
Also the UK STD code numbering scheme was built up in a different way to the
UK. The digit '0' was used to access the long distance/STD system
The 'big' cities (London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool &
Manchester) had a similar system to the US known as the Director system.
Within each 'Director' area, they dialled an 'office' code plus a four digit
number to reach each other. In addition each Director area had its own
'area'/STD code.
Everywhere else had a different system. Smaller rural switches were
parented on larger switches known as 'Group Switching Centres' The small
switches were known as 'dependent exchanges. Each GSC had its own STD code
i.e. my local switch is Mold which was (0)352. Smaller switches parented on
Mold were accessed by 'local' codes - usually in the range 8X then 7X. The
smaller switches dialled '9' to reach the GSC. Thus the STD code for a
small rural exchange would be (0)352 8X plus the number.
We had a case last year where some-one (known to others) reserved a number
of three digit office codes (then the only way of reserving a code based on
the US system on the WIKI) covering much of West Wales. This person neither
lived in the area nor did he have an old EM switch which had seen service in
the area but his reserved three digit codes had block the STD codes for
about thirty switches.
Then we had a UK user who lived in the area of the reserved codes who had a
working asterisk tandem plus two working electro-mechanical switches, on of
which was identical to that that had previously served the village where he
lived. After much discussion between those with working asterisk tandems in
the UK, it was decided to see if Greg could alter the WIKI to have UK codes
up to 5 digits long and this was done enabling us to reserve codes up to
that length. We also produced a 'document' (guide/recommendation?) for CNET
numbering in the UK which was then put to potential users on our CNETUKI
discussion list. All were in favour of adopting it.
This is an extract of some of it -
Length of UK Codes
Currently each person joining CNET is allocated a three digit ABC code and
the DE digits are added in the Asterisk Tandem exchange followed by however
many digits in the actual number. In reality, the telephone number was
usually 3 or 4 digits after the DE digits or if it was the GSC i.e. after
the ABC digits, it was usually 4 or 5 digits long number. Thus the
allocation of a three digit office/exchange code with the ABC digits could
'sterilise' a large numbering range if only one set of DE digits was
actually used. For instance if someone is allocated a three digit ABC digit
code of say (0)234 and they then use 81 as the DE digits to reach their
small former public switch with its three digit numbering scheme - a large
portion of the 234 code remains unused and if the person is awkward -
unusable !!
In future, UK codes be allocated to 4 or 5 digits depending upon the
original STD code.
Reservation of codes -
'Reservation' is designed be an' intention to use the code' (a 4 or 5 digit
one as above) and with a time limit on 'activation'.
a.. For two months it is reserved unconditionally.
b.. But if it is not 'up and actually running' by then - it can be
activated for someone-else who has their Asterisk Tandem 'up, running and
ready to go' if they have a 'reasonable claim' (see next paragraph for
definition) for that code.
c.. If that "someone-else" doesn't come forward, the code still remains
'reserved' for the original claimant subject to not being claimed by
anyone-else subsequently.
Reasonable Claim to a Code
In the UK, we are tending to use -
1.. the old STD code for the exchange area that we live in.
2.. the old STD code for a former public exchange that we have preserved.
3.. the old STD code with which we have a connection with.
If two claimants want to reserve the same STD code (at the ABCDE level for 5
digit codes and ABCD for 4 digit codes) that the claims be treated with
precedence as above.
If someone has a preserved public exchange, at least, they get the option of
two codes in the order given above - which someone living in the area doesn't.
Claim for a three digit code
Someone may wish to order a three digit ABC code for a Group Switching
Centre - allocation would thus 'sterilise' all the dependent exchange codes.
That the code be reserved at the 4 digit ABCD level, i.e. with the first
digit of the subscriber levels as part of the code thus leaving the
'dependent exchange' codes free for use. Thus the ABCD/ABCDE codes for the
dependent exchanges would still be available. This would not necessarily
preclude the reservation of dependent exchange codes but conditions in
Recommendation 2 and 3 above relating to Precedence and Length of
Reservation.
The above extract gives some idea of how we have dealt with the matter - the
person who reserved all the codes in West Wales mysteriously removed his
reservation for the area where the user with the working Asterisl lives and
that using was connected straight away !! The original person who reserved
the codes still hasn't appeared on CNET and to our knowledge has not got any
of the EM switches he has stockpiled over the last 15 years, working.
Hopefully the problem had gone away.
We've now got some interesting code splits in the UK - for instance I have
the following former STD codes for local exchanges working on my Asterisk -
(0)244 Chester
(0)244 52 Spon Green
(0)244 57 Penyffordd
(0)244 59 Rossett
but Peter Duffield (who lives a mile from me) has the codes on his Asterisk
Tandem -
(0)244 54 Buckley
(0)244 55 Nant Mawr
(0)244 56 Kinnerton
- are these the closest CNET switches??
We've now also got users with 'Director area' codes. I host some on my
Asterisk Tandem. I have also set up a couple of lines in extensions.conf
that allows them to call others within the same 'director' area by just
dialling the office code without dialling the STD code i.e. a user with
the STD code (0)1 647 ' can call another Asterisk Tandem with say the code
(0)1 807 by just dialling the 807 XXXX as they would have done within the
same 'director' area.
Many thanks to Greg for setting up the UK code reservation bit of the Code
Reservation WIKI.
Those in New Zealand have also adopted the system of using their old STD
codes (similar in style to the UK's old system). New Zealand currently has
single digit STD codes and seven digit subscribers numbers. Hence the
ability to adopt the old codes in keeping with the 'heritage' aspect of
CNET.
Maybe we should insist that anyone reserving a code leaves a valid means of
contact somehow - I'm sure it could be done but not be visible to all for
the World to use for SPAM ? It would be up to the 'code reserver' to keep
it updated if he wanted to keep the code reserved.
I think access to the WIKI is completely open at the moment and not just
reserved for those subscribed to the message list? Should it be
completely open? We have some UK codes reserved by people that the
collectors of EM equipment have never heard of - and they've been reserved
for many months.
Just some thoughts
Ian Jolly
+64 85 32 889
+44 (0) 352 82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from
CNET - the Heritage Telephone Network
+44 (0)1352 83 82 26 (via a 1929 GPO Rural Automatic eXchange!) from Public
Telephone Network
FWD Telephone No 83 2230
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Novack" <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at lists.ckts.info>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Status monitoring
>
>
> Jayson Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's something I posted last June on the subject:
>> Another issue with which I'm likely to start a flamewar is timeframes.
>> Let's say a guy comes along, thinks CNET is totally cool, and registers
>> an office code thinking he'll set up an Asterisk box. After a while, for
>> some reason, he loses interest in the project and we never hear from him
>> again.
>> Yet, his office code is patiently waiting for him to activate it, and
>> during this infinite time, from now until the end of the world, nobody
>> else can take it. Once again, I'm not saying this has happened, but if
>> it ever were to happen, there should probably be a policy where any
>> office code that's been registered but goes unused for so long, and the
>> registrant is unreachable or no longer interested, should be freed up for
>> someone else to use.
>>
> As the community grows, this will be come more of a bone of contention.
> In some cases it may even discourage someone from joining the group. I
> know of one case that someone said "if I can't have Nxx then I don't
> want to join in " Of course, Greg has a reasonable solution with the
> ability to split office codes, and reasonable members will certainly
> find a way to share 10000 numbers.
>
>> Here are my thoughts now. Maybe someone should do a one-time polling of
>> all office codes, looking for those that, although listed in the Wiki,
>> come back as invalid when a call is attempted. I presume this is what
>> happens when an office code is registered but never activated?
> One time may not be such a good idea, as almost anything wrong on the
> net can cause a one time outage, from the ISP to dyndns not properly
> updated to a hardware failure such as Remco's.
> Long term inactivity needs to be addressed, though. I know of several
> codes that have never been in use, some reserved by members that don't
> participate in the list community, others that have specific numbers in
> the directory that haven't worked in months, and others that have been
> reserved but will be up and running later this year.
>> Greg may have records, even though they are not accessible to us, of name
>> and Email address of registrant and date of registration. For invalid
>> office codes that have been registered for a long time (how long?)
>> someone should attempt to contact the registrant. If there's still
>> interest, retain the code. If not, release the code. For those people who
>> don't respond, have outdated contact info, etc.
>> post a list of names, office codes, and dates to this list to see if
>> anyone here knows the people in question and can provide any insight. If
>> so, use that info to decide. If, within a reasonable time (How long?)
>> there are no nibbles, release those codes. Just my thoughts.
>>
> And perhaps someone would consider doing this besides Greg?
> Greg has a more than full time job and a family and I am sure better
> things to do than track this kind of thing.
> One item missing from the reservation page, probably for good reason, is
> contact information for whoever reserved the code. Not sure if even Greg
> has that.
>
> I assume this is less of a problem with the UK numbering?
>
> John Novack
>
> --
> Dog is my co-pilot
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at lists.ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.9/975 - Release Date: 26/08/2007
> 21:34
>
>
More information about the VoIP
mailing list