[asterisk-biz] ANI

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:00:22PM +0200, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> > Unless I'm very much mistaken, ANI is a *delivery method*.   BTN is a
> > *label for a subscriber service* which is *delivered via* ANI.
> 
> ANI is an informational element, how that is transmitted would rely on
> the delivery method.  
> 
> > So your assertion doesn't actually make a lot of sense.
> 
> It makes sense if you properly understand that ANI is information, a
> phone number for example, and not a delivery method, sip for example.

Do you have a pointer to a data dictionary that lists CLID, ANI, and
BTN as three separate ISUP elements?

> > I don't see that my assertion there was at all difficult to understand.
> 
> no its not difficult to understand, its just based on flawed information
> as a result its not accurate.  ANI is not a delivery method, its an
> informational element.  That little difference changes a lot in what you
> claimed, such as below.

Citation.  Please.

> > > Case and point the federal government will often send calls out onto the
> > > pstn with a ani and caller id of 0000000000, which is less than valid.
> > > This disproves assertions that it has to point somewhere valid.
> > 
> > Nope, it proves that US federal government agencies often break (or,
> > less often, are exempt from) lots of laws and regulations, often to the
> > detriment of precisely the people those laws were designed to protect.
> > 
> > And the common usage is "case in point"
> 
> Uhh, you forgot to quote where you said it was required to point
> somewhere valid for the call to go through, which is false it does not.

<sigh>

The standard operation of the elements in the PSTN is such that if a
valid ANI is not transmitted along with every call, *some element
somewhere* is going to have a heart attack of one scale or another.

Better?

> You have changed from saying its required to point somewhere valid for
> the call to route to saying that its a delivery method as opposed to an
> informational element.  I would suggest that you stop changing your
> argument from one thing to another when assertions such as those are
> challenged.  It makes you look like you dont know what you are talking
> about, and given that this is a business list it may make it difficult
> for you to market yourself should you desire to do that.  Just a little
> friendly advice, take it or leave it.

*Exactly* what I said was this:

> When calls are dumped into the PSTN, they *have* to have valid ANI;
> too much of the semantics of the entire remainder of the PSTN depends
> on it.

> If that impairs the ability of some to interact with subscribers to the
> PSTN, then they'll have to find another way to cope with it.  If you
> mean what I think you mean by "aggregators" -- intermediate carriers
> who bridge traffic from smaller edge providers to the PSTN, then your
> responsiblity is to require that of your edge providers by contracts
> with teeth.

> But there has to be an ANI, and it has to point somewhere valid -- even
> if it's the edge provider itself as proxy for the end sub.

You are alleging that I said (or even implied) that the call would not
complete if valid ANI wasn't included; clearly, I did not say that.

> Thanks for correcting me on case in point vs case and point.  I will be
> sure to credit you for that, you are correct in that singular point, it
> is case in point.  My apologies for mistyping a common phrase.

Well, dammit, Bret... :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                   Baylink                      jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com                     '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274

	     Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
	     Those who count the vote decide everything.
	       -- (Joseph Stalin)