[VoIP] Number portability in CNET

[Dennis D Hock]

Steph,

I was under the impression with my limited education on this that all that
was being redirected was the address duroing the initial setup.  It would
not be quite like legacy tandeming.  Once the request was recognized to no
longer be within the far end * box, it would send the new location of that
number back and the first * box would then simply redirect to that tandem.
I would'nt see any additional delay per see as long as they redirecting
party was not trying to perform legacy tandeming.

Greg / Shane am I correct in this assumption?

Dennis H.

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


To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
From: Steph Kerman <stfkerman at jps.net>
Sent by: voip-bounces at ckts.info
Date: 10/27/2007 12:52PM
Subject: Re: [VoIP] Number portability in CNET


David Josephson wrote:
> As with most software-defined realities, we can do any or all of those
> things. The whole 7-digit dialed number is part of the ENUM query, so
> Greg's server could indeed look up each individual number, or look for
> ranges of numbers.
> I should have written more of a preface. I was responding to the
> latest round about office code hoarding.
It would be interesting to see an inventory of how many office codes
have been taken, how many of those have been activated and how many are
open.  It sounds like the whole topic is not a real concern for the
foreseeable future considering the ease with which the existing ENUM
structure supports sharing with very high flexibility in the block size.
> Since this topic comes up tiresomely often, implying that someone
> would like one of the office codes that someone else is sitting on, we
> could reach a consensus that we'd ask Greg to carve out some of the
> office code in the ENUM table, if the original assignee of that office
> code was not using it, and/or unable to forward a desired number to
> someone who *would* use it.
Here's where you lose me.  I don't understand the distinction you are
making between carving out a block or individual number in ENUM and the
original assignee "forwarding" it.
> Whether the call is forwarded by redirect or by tandem switching of
> course depends on the architecture of the two involved offices.
I understood Shane to be saying that redirection occurred through ENUM.
What mechanism exists for a call to be forwarded by redirection other
than through ENUM?  Tandem switching seems likely to increase the delay
to an intolerable point.  I don't see how it can not introduce
noticeable unnecessary impairment even if some might consider the total
delay acceptable.  Has anyone experimented with tandem switching through
CNET to see what the calls sound like?

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