[VoIP] CNET number assignments

Wed Aug 29 05:53:40 CDT 2007

John,

I'll see what I can dg up on the pack.  I assume beside talking about
everyone who isn't there we can contiue this discussion albeit in an
abridged manner.

Dennis Hock

-----voip-bounces at lists.ckts.info wrote: -----

To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at lists.ckts.info>
From: john jones <jjones3601 at yahoo.com>
Sent by: voip-bounces at lists.ckts.info
Date: 08/26/2007 03:07PM
Subject: [VoIP] CNET number assignments

I think we all need to start thinking about number portability on CNET so
that we can all stop tying up 10,000 number per office code.   I can
predict that many people have reserved codes that mean something to them so
giving back the reserved code from one's childhood may be controversial
even if there are  no imminent plans to implement something.  So if we
could do number assignments in smaller blocks, the concept of reclaiming
vacant address blocks could be deferred for a much longer time.

Try to dig up some info on your Avaya E&M interface and we can try to get
your 3810 set up ( or mostly so) next weekend.

John

----- Original Message ----
From: Dennis D Hock <hockd at dteenergy.com>
To: Ian Jolly <ian at uax.org.uk>; Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches
<voip at lists.ckts.info>
Cc: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at lists.ckts.info>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 1:54:16 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Status monitoring

Ian,  I second third or whatever for whatever type of switch a person has
chosen to use.  I don't recall anyone on the CNet ever agreeing that we
would limit it to only Heritage or EM machines.  In fact I believe one of
the key founders who was instrumental in the proof of concept did not have
a switch at the time he jumped in and helped to really get things set up
and rolling.

I don't believe we are shunning anyone however I could see where a person
who gets involved may decide to drop out for any number of reasons.  Not
unlike the case in any hobby I suppose.

There was a discussion I think late last year regarding the return and
reclaimation of unused codes.  Allowing a person so long to get something
on line.  I don't recall the exact outcome but I think we were mostly in
agreement that a block of time be allowed and then the code should be
returned or at the very least a person should post their intentions.  Being
the informal group we are I am not sure if or what concrete came of it.

Greg, John N, John J, Jayson, Anybody else can you concur that is what we
discussed informally?

To the comments John N made I agree perhaps this person got the wrong idea
in that most of the posts are about Strwoger.  But hey that is what most
folks have.  But there are those here with xbar and electronic.

It is only work and family that have stymied my completing my SXS and I
have an AVAYA Merlin Legend with 4W E&M Tie trunks that is puttering in the
background awaiting -perhaps the Cisco 3810 and a channel bank to get them
in the race.  When that happens I sure won't have any trouble posting more
numbers that home on it.

I think maybe this person just lost interest and perhaps in this day and
age of signing up for all sorts of things on the Innernet they just left
not giving a thought to the fact that they were tying up numbering
resources.

Any way my two cents worth.

Dennis Hock

-----voip-bounces at lists.ckts.info wrote: -----

To: <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>, "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
Switches" <voip at lists.ckts.info>
From: "Ian Jolly" <ian at uax.org.uk>
Sent by: voip-bounces at lists.ckts.info
Date: 08/26/2007 11:31AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Status monitoring

I echo your sentiments John.

I tend to use the term 'Heritage switch'  rather than EM switch - as first
generation electronic systems are now worthy of preservation in their on
right.

Why not have them connected to CNET?   It all helps to expand the network
and those interested in preserving old switches together.

I've just had someone  put in touch with me, who has a working strowger
switch and never realised that there were others afflicted in the same way.
I'm now educating him in the ways of CNET  :-)

We have several folk in the UK who just have an ATA or two hosted on
someone-else's asterisk tandem. The ATAs are connected to exchange trunks
on
first generation electronic PABXs.   These 1st generation electronic
switches can be now be older than the youngsters who are collecting the old
telephones connected to them.  Remember a 21 year old sees an electronic
switch introduced in the late 1970's as 'ancient' - they weren't even born
then.

Let us encourage the preservation and connection of these switches - they
are all part of the evolving 'Story of Telecoms'.

Ian Jolly

+64 85 32 889 from CNET
+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: Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Status monitoring

>
>
> Ian Jolly wrote:
>> It is almost a year since the subject was discussed.  Chad Perkins was
>> working on it, if I remember correctly and a sample of Chad's 'test
>> results' page is still at http://maine.maine.edu/~chad/cnetmwt.html
>>
>> I notice that on the /411 and other pages that there are several office
>> codes listed with a number of entries against each.
>>
>> However no response is received if they are dialled.   In fact I spotted
>> the "owner" of one of these listed codes saying on another list that he
>> used to be on "CNET"
>> To quote him -
>>
>> "Again definitely didn't want to put CNET in a bad light or anything,
>> again I actually had a switch on there for a while (It wasn't an EM
>> switch but a digital imitation, yes I can hear a few people booing at me
>> now for trying that, so I gave up on it). "
>>
> I for one certainly don't feel that way.
> There are many reasons for someone not having an EM switch, from space,
> to time, to available equipment.
> There are several still hooked up that only have simulations, and I
> think thats just fine. As long as someone has interest, and in many
> cases, contributes to the community, any sort of "imitation" works for
me.
>
> Perhaps whoever knows who this fellow is can give him a pep talk and
> either welcome him back or ask that he release the office codes back
> into the pool
> It is certainly understandable when someone, as the fellow in New
> Orleans, gets flooded out and takes years to get back into operation.
> What I don't quite get is someone "giving up" and not letting the
> community know.
> Obviously if one dies, notification is forgiven. Otherwise speak up!
>
> The status monitor project was interesting and useful, and if some of us
> need to reserve a number for that function, lets do it and pump some
> life back into the effort.
>
> 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: 269.12.8/973 - Release Date:
25/08/2007
> 17:00
>

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at lists.ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at lists.ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/

_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at lists.ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/