[VoIP] Number portability in CNET

[Steph Kerman]

OK.  That makes sense.  If I understand it correctly, as long as lines 
are assigned locally (not ported), no ENUM update is required.  Update 
is only required if a line or block of lines is ported.  Clever...

And presumably a block of any size could be ported and lines then 
assigned within that block at the secondary location without updating 
ENUM for each line either.

Steph

Shane Young wrote:
> The same way. Manually.
>
> If a number need to be "ported out" of a block, Greg needs to go into 
> dns and put in an entry for that number.
>
> Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:
>> How does ENUM get updated when new line assignments are made?
Shane Young wrote:
> For North america, All 7 digits are queried to the DNS (with the 
> country code 1 as well)
>
> I beleive (though I haven't actually seen Greg's files) that he uses 
> simple wildcards which work nicely in DNS normally.
>
> The theory is you could have an entry for the whole 10k block to route 
> one place and add any number of more-specific entries to route to 
> other places.
>
> Again, very similar to how LNP works.
>
> There is no technical reason why a whole office code needs to be 
> routed to a particular switch.
>
> Quoting Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>