[VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
Ian Jolly
ian at uax.org.uk
Thu Nov 1 06:50:09 CST 2007
I've replied to Greg at length but just to put you in the picture briefly.
In the UK/Ireland (and New Zealand) we decided to adopt the old dialling
codes that use to be used prior to public switches being grouped together
with a single 'area' (STD) code and a long number. Nowadays, all calls
within an "area code" are routed between switches without a code. In the
old days we would have dialled a local code between these switches and
callers into the "area" would have dialled the area code plus the local code
to reach the smaller switches or just the area code for the main 'parent'
switch in the area.
In 1995 to increase the number of available codes in the UK, the digit '1'
was inserted after the initial access digit '0' to all geographic codes in
the UK making them four digits long.
When CNET was first set up, the 'office' code was limited to three digits -
our "area code" in the UK. This fitted in nicely with the old 'heritage'
STD codes which it was decided we would adopt particularly as a number of us
have original former public switches preserved - hence we would use the
original code for that switch. Others wanted to use their own local code (as
it was originally) and others a code with which they had a connection.
We had a case at the end of last year where a person reserved several UK
three digit codes which covered most of the west of Wales. That person
whilst having a number of EM PABXs has never to our knowledge got anything
up and working in the last 15 years. Some of the area codes that he
reserved he had neither the original public switches nor were they in an
area he lived in. We had a collector with an Asterisk up and running, a
former public EM switch working plus an EM crossbar switch, all ready to
connect but couldn't have his own local codes!
An ad hoc committee of the then four working Asterisk owners was left by
other UK members to try to find a solution. Part of the solution was to
allow the reservation of codes up to five digits long (the longest ever used
by the old British Post Office system). We then also suggested that a
'code' could be reserved "unreservedly" for two months but could be
reallocated after that if some-one was ready to connect. The original
'reserver' of the required code withdrew his reservation.
Due to the system of old UK codes consisting of an "area" code for the
'main parent' switch/exchange and the "area" code plus the local code for
the smaller switches we have a situation such as this -
Code Exchange Name Asterisk Owner
244 Chester Ian Jolly
244 52 Spon Green Ian Jolly
244 54 Buckley Peter Duffield
244 55 Nant Mawr Peter Duffield
244 56 Kinnerton Peter Duffield
244 57 Penyffordd David Harper
244 59 Rossett David Harper
Thus some of us are even 'sharing' the same three digit code. In the UK we
tended to refer to exchanges/switches by a name rather than their code.
Some of the codes/exchange names are real. Others are made up using a
locality name that the Asterisk owner wants to use. Which are real in the
above list ? :-)
All the above people are within three miles of each other! And yet we've
sorted out the code problem. We could even add more such as 244 58, 244 6X
and so on. The codes/exchange names could be real or made up. Not only do
we have the above codes set up via the ENUM, we can dial the old original
local codes from one exchange to another (these route between Asterisks
without going via the ENUM). So far we have about 60 "exchanges/switches"
set up between the three Asterisk boxes in North Wales. It looks as though
most of the North of Wales still exists. It is very hard to work out from
our little "network" which are the real switches and which are the
'mythical' ones ! :-) You can dial from one switch to another to another
and so one - just as phonephreakers did many years ago! 24 "switches" in a
row with something like a 36 digit code is the longest so far before we
connected :-)
Back to things more serious. don't think we want to tie things down too
tightly. "Why mend it if it isn't broke" ?. On the other hand try to
foresee any problems. The fact that we have so many codes available in the
UK now that we can go up to five digits has eased the problem. And the fact
that most of know each other in one way or another helps.
We have had one odd problem. One UK three digit code has been reserved and
activated by a person unknown to anyone else in the UK. I've tracked the
person down and emailled them with an email address used by them recently
but no response. No-one-else has seen calls from them going through their
Asterisks. What do we do with a situation like that? Also the /411, and
/192 directory pages have some list of numbers which haven't worked for a
long while. Should we ensure that Asterisk owners only enter numbers that
are working? Note I use the term Asterisk owner and not 'code owner' - a
point brought up by others.
Some of you may not be aware of my recent appointment as Assistant Deputy
Chief Enum Coordination Officer (Rest of the World) - thanks Arthur !
I now help Greg out by looking after the non North American CNET
applications for membership and code activations. Any applications come to
both of us so we can back each other up in case of illness etc.
Ian jolly
+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: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
To: <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>; "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog
Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Office code reservation was Number portability in CNET
>I apologize, guys. I can see that everyone is fairly concerned about
> putting their time and energies into a hobby that could fall apart
> disastrously if a war over unsettled issues erupts.
>
> Something you should bear in mind: a new network could be started in
> competition with this one, so your efforts at making asterisk boxes and
> embedded asterisk firewalls would not ultimately go to waste. You could
> always take your marbles and go join a different game.
>
> All that said, I hope that we don't get to that point. I kinda like all
> the back and forth we have on the list, and I would miss it if the noise
> level got too low.
>
> I am going to talk with Ian Jolly off-list, and see what it is that they
> have put in place that keeps the UK switchers from warring over their
> office codes. I'm sure that the legacy phone network in Britain evolved
> over time, so it can't be as cut and dried as it seems.
>
> Once I hear from him, I would like to get volunteers to be part of a
> standards committee. We could all bring our best ideas, discuss the
> issues, along with possible solutions, and then present what we come up
> with to everyone on this list for all of us to vote on.
>
> That's the only way I can think of that we can resolve some things
> without burning up too much time on this mailing list, rehashing the
> same things over and over.
>
> Once we have voted, any policies that we adopt will be added to the
> ckts.info website.
>
> So, if you have a desire to be a part of the standards committee, please
> drop me an email off-list, and we'll get this critter going in a
> business-like, yet friendly, fashion.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: voip-bounces at ckts.info [mailto:voip-bounces at ckts.info]
>> On Behalf Of John Novack
>>
>>
>> The UK guys are ahead of us in their policy and planning so I
>> don't consider a discussion out of line.
>>
>> By having a few policies in place we certainly don't destroy
>> the informal nature of it all.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date:
> 30/10/2007 18:26
>
>
More information about the VoIP
mailing list