[VoIP] Number portability in CNET

Thu Nov 1 08:35:50 CST 2007

I also have been reading this with interest and would agreee with Doug.  I
further think we do need these discussions and need to do some long range
planning for the eventuality.  Based on that we need to decide as Ian or
Jon put it what do we think will be the least of the two evils, that is
splitting office codes or implementing area codes.

I think interms of the n11 they can be implemented if a person is of a mind
to provide that service for the network.  Barring that each person can
implement what ever n11 codes they feel and / or want.  I think we should
give some consideration to a 911 entry in the event that some one visiting
our abode has a problem and attempts to use what ever instrument they are
nearest too.  Likely they won't know which ones support what, heck the
family probably won't know in many cases.

I am sorry I didn't get a chance to send you (Greg) Ians' information which
he so kindly provided to me and I brought to the Cinci show.  John N. and I
had a brief discussion at the show but didn't get too far.  I hope and
believe that Ian would have no problem with me sending it too yourself
(Greg).

I think ultimately we will need to put into play NPAs but until then as
long as we are able to share the office codes this should be a ways out.

I also don't think that what a person chooses to hang off their Asterisk
box should be a problem.  Certainly the "C" stands for Collectors but what
one collects is and can be different for all of us.  I don't think if a
person has a Strowger or a late model say Partner or as John N has the
Toshiba Perception in place and online.  My Step is unfortunately still
spread around the basement with only some of it remounted and getting ready
to be rewired.

I would hate to see this fine group, and I mean that with all sincerity,
brek up or fragment after we have come so far.  Muchg farther I think than
any of us could have envisioned early on!

Just my thoughts.

Resapectfully submitted,

Dennis Hock

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

To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
From: John Novack <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 10/31/2007 09:25PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET

I answered before reading Doug's response, so I second his opinions, as
I did before reading.

John Novack

Doug Alderdice wrote:
> Sounds good for the most part, Shane, however it has been my
understanding
> that having an EM switch was *not* a prerequisite to being on the CNET
and
> having an office code (or two).  The original intent of CNET was to trunk
> old switches together, but it has been extended to others like Jayson who
> have a genuine interest in the old switches but don't actually have
> one.  (I hope Jayson doesn't think we are picking on him as there are
> others on CNET who are in the same situation, no switch but have genuine
> interest in old switching.)  As I recall (to further use Jayson as an
> example), Jayson asked publicly on this list if he could put up a
> switch-less Asterisk on CNET and there was a resounding "of course" from
> the group.
>
> The picture idea is good for those who are intending to put an EM switch
on
> CNET, and may be a good way of having a place holder on an office code
> while a switch is under construction, but I think the idea of actually
> getting an Asterisk box online within a certain time frame is a better
way
> of handling the office code issuance.  After all, there would be a "box"
to
> accept calls to the office code in question and proves to some degree the
> owner's seriousness of joining CNET.
>
> JMO.
>
> Doug.
>
>
> At 06:29 PM 10/31/2007 -0500, Shane Young wrote:
>
>> Ok, I've got an idea.  Feel free to smack me if you think it's retarded.
>>
>>
>>
>> Agree on a timeframe (1 month, 6 months, whatever).  Call this the
>> "reservation period" or some such term.
>>
>> Once you "reserve" an office code, you have that period of time to
>> post a picture of the switch you intend to connect.  This needs to be
>> a picture of your switch, not a stock photo of  #5XB board from the
>> Western Electric 1972 Christmas catalog ;)
>>
>>
>> This acomplishes two things.  It shows that you are serious about
>> connecting your equipment to CNET *and* we all get to "ooooh" and
>> "ahhhh" over your switch.
>>
>> Once you have posted a picture, you get to extend your reservation by
>> one more "reservation period" before the switch needs to be connected.
>>
>> If the switch isn't connected by that time, the reservation is marked
>> "available for re-assignment" but is still reserved with the original
>> person's name.
>>
>> If somone else comes along and wants that office code, it could be
>> reserved by that new person, following the same guidelines.
>>
>> Otherwise it just sits there as reserved but available.
>>
>>
>> We'd need to come up with some addtional guidelines for thoes who have
>> no intention of getting a switch but are active participants in CNET
>> and have something to offer by having an office code assigned to them.
>>
>> Jayson is a good example here, might not ever get a switch, but has a
>> bunch of stuff on his asterisk box to share *and* is seriously
>> interested in understanding how all of this stuff works.  He should
>> probably get to keep his office code or at least whatever portions he
>> thinks he'll use.
>>
>> There will probably be other exceptions as well, but I think most
>> grown adults could agree on those.
>>
>> Thoughts??
>>
>> --Shane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Jayson Smith <ratguy at insightbb.com>:
>>
>>
>>> The original owner of the office code, in my opinion, would grant
>>>
>> permission
>>
>>> to the person desiring certain numbers from that code to use those
numbers.
>>> Then, either the owner, or the new user of those certain numbers would
>>> contact Greg to get the Enum records changed.
>>> Jayson
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Arthur Bloom" <m35prod at optonline.net>
>>> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Who would give permission to allow the use of, say, 1000 numbers, or
100
>>>> or
>>>> even 1 number?  The person who originally hoarded...excuse
me..."reserved"
>>>> the code?  Or the Chief Enum Coordination Officer?  It seems like a
>>>> conflict
>>>> might lead to bad feelings.  I agree with the others who say that area
>>>> codes
>>>> are the best long-range plan.
>>>>
>>>> APB, Pres.
>>>>
>>>> SHelterisland Telefon, Telegraf & Telewombat Company (SHiTTTCo)
>>>>
>>>> Providing service for nearly a hundredth of a century.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    1-749-0100  CN
>>>> 631-749-0100  VZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Jayson Smith" <ratguy at insightbb.com>
>>>> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:13 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> | I'm probably hopelessly late on my reply, but by default, the entire
>>>> office
>>>> | code is assigned to one person, and that person has all 10000 lines
to
>>>> play
>>>> | with. However, one or more lines can have their Enum records changed
to
>>>> | point at someone else.
>>>> | Jayson
>>>> |
>>>> | ----- Original Message -----
>>>> | From: "Steph Kerman" <stfkerman at jps.net>
>>>> | To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
>>>> | Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:13 PM
>>>> | Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> | > How does this fit in with David's comment?
>>>> | >
>>>> | > If the full 7-digit number is looked up in ENUM for each call to
allow
>>>> | > sharing of office codes doesn't that require ENUM to be updated
for
>>>> all
>>>> | > new line assignments at local switches?  I thought only the
3-digit
>>>> | > office code was being looked up and that there was discussion
about
>>>> | > extending this to the thousands digit to allow sharing of office
codes
>>>> | > in blocks of 1000 numbers, but that it had not been done.
>>>> | >
>>>> | > Steph
>>>> | >
>>>> | > Shane Young wrote:
>>>> | >> There is no need to do either.
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >> Since we always lookup every number in DNS via ENUM, greg just
points
>>>> | >> the "ported" number to the new destination.
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >> It's a lot like the way real LNP works.
>>>> | >> --Shane
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >> Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >>
>>>> | >>> Send by redirecting at the originating point or send by
tandeming
>>>> | >>> through your system?
>>>> | >>>
>>>> | >>> Steph
>>>> | >>>
>>>> | >>> David Josephson wrote:
>>>> | >>>
>>>> | >>>> I think that anyone who has an office code should be able to
>>>> provide
>>>> | >>>> routing to other CNET numbers, should anyone else have a desire
for
>>>> a
>>>> | >>>> code in that prefix. I am in the process of constructing a 411
>>>> service
>>>> | >>>> to live at 555-1212, and I do have 555-2368 ringing on my desk.
But
>>>> if
>>>> | >>>> someone wanted another 555 number I'd be happy to write a line
in
>>>> the
>>>> | >>>> dialplan to send calls somewhere else.
>>>> | >>>>
>>>> | >>>> --
>>>> | >>>> David Josephson
>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
>

--
Dog is my co-pilot

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