[VoIP] Number portability in CNET

[Doug Alderdice]

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