[VoIP] Standards Committee Recommendation

Tue Nov 13 04:40:46 CST 2007

Thank you Jayson,

I am already sharing my code 269 with Chris Mattingly although based upon
the standard I would guess those numbers will go back to the pool as Chris
does not have any high speed connectivity.  Perhaps when he sends in an
implementation timeline it may show differently.  I may be able to return
one or two of the thousands blocks which I directly control to the pool.
I'll have to set down and do a little ciphering ;-).  I certainly don't
need 5000 numbers myself.  I think a nice clean block to retain of 1 or 2
thousand would probably suffice for me.

I think this direction will give us many years of numbers being available
before having to implement the early NPA style codes n1x or n0x.

Hey Gregs good but we all need to sleep at least a little.

Dennis

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

To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
From: "Jayson Smith" <ratguy at insightbb.com>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 11/13/2007 05:27AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Standards Committee Recommendation

Good points. I E-mailed Greg to release four thousand blocks of my +1 622
office code. As of yet, they haven't been turned off, so all my thousand
blocks are still active. Of course, having E-mailed him around 2:00 A.M.
EST, I wouldn't expect any different.
Jayson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis D Hock" <hockd at dteenergy.com>
To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Cc: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Standards Committee Recommendation

>
> Greg et all,
>
> I have reviewed the proposed Number Assignment Policy and think this is a
> good start.  How does one go about returning to the pool block of numbers
> which they are not actively using?  I assume we are looking for minimum
> blocks of 1000 numbers yes?  Opps guess if I had reread the document
first
> I answered that question.  How soon will the committe be looking to
> receive
> the implementation letters from some of the folks who don't have a
working
> machine?  With the 30day window on that issue are you (opps We) expecting
> all persons with codes reserved to submit a documnet within say the next
> month or so.  I beklieve that is what I am reading.
>
> On a related note and not to be getting too formal should we have numbers
> identifing the various paragraphs of the document.  For example 1.1, 1.2
> to
> make it easier to sight a reference as may be required later.  This
rather
> than reading through the entire docunment, although at this time that is
> not an issue.
>
> Oh one more thing perhaps there should be a suggested or mandatory
comment
> period after which time you are too late.  Not saying that whatever is
> decided is fixed in concrete as the committee can always choose to
revisit
> it, but that would give folks an idea of get your fingers typing or risk
> having little potential input to whatever the issue is.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Dennis Hock
>
> -----voip-bounces at ckts.info wrote: -----
>
>
> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> From: "Greg Blakely" <greg at vyger.net>
> Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
> Date: 11/11/2007 07:06PM
> Subject: [VoIP] Standards Committee Recommendation
>
> The Standards Committee has come up with a document that proposes some
> changes as to how North American office codes are allocated.
>
> There was not unanimous agreement on all points, but a general consensus
> was obtained.
>
> You can (and should) view the entire document at either
> http://www.ckts.info/standards/CNET-Number-Assignments.pdforat
> http://www.shaneyoung.com/cnet/standards/CNET-Standards-Assignments.pdf.
>
> Basically, it proposes that, for North American participants in the
> network:
>
> + Rather than having an assignment of 1-NNX, a smaller block would be
> assigned,
> along the lines of 1-NXX-X.
>
> + Reserving numbers will be discontinued, with participants able to
> activate
> their selection online when they are ready to start testing
>
> + Office codes will not have a zero or one as the second digit of the
> three digit code.
> This leaves open the possibility of using N0/1X as area codes should
> we ever decide
> to go there.
>
> + Switchers who already have dialing plans in place that are not in
> compliance with
> these plans will be grandfathered in to accommodate someone who has
> gone to the
> time and trouble to get online with the non-compliant configuration.
> The end fate
> of the non-compliant implementations will be discussed in committee at
> a later date,
> and will probably be changed or allowed on a case-by-case basis.
>
>
> This is just MY summary of the document we approved.  PLEASE go to one
> of the links listed above, and decide for yourself if it is a standard
> that is generally sound or not.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> CNET: +1-652-6610
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
>
_______________________________________________
VoIP mailing list
VoIP at ckts.info
http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/