[Dundi] representation

[Ed Guy]

I'll concede that us toll free numbers now are essentially unique.
(although people told me of their experiences reaching different 
toll-free subscribers using FWD,  I cannot confirm it and it goes 
against service and location portability policies that went in 
place over the last decade.)

The DUNDi protocol can assume that any IN routing is beyond its 
scope	and the requirements to achieve such SHOULD be handled by 
the Egress Gateway. (Although, it is not likely at this time.) 

IMHO, +18NN numbers should be published in the e164 trust group.
However, if your service is such that it requires the call to 
enter the PSTN with certain characteristics, don't locate 
egress gateways for these calls via DUNDi. International 
FWD users are usually thrilled to reach US 800 numbers despite 
the origination point.


* * * * 

700 services are not unique; they are carrier-specific
and used for carrier specific purposes. (e.g., 700/5554141 
should tell you the carrier.) Dundi has the ability to supply 
multiple routes. 

The caller of these e.164 numbers expects something special to happen 
based on the carrier in use.   DUNDI provides routes to 
Services and Egress Gateways,  but does not specify the carrier to use. 
The chosen route will result in a call with their carrier-specific 
behavior.  Like +18NN numbers, if you need a certain behavior, 
don't locate egress gateways for these numbers via DUNDi.

IMHO, the e.164 trust group/GPA should no preclude listing 700 
numbers, and the caller should be able to choose the 
route that is used.  But, since this might be confusing for the 
current implementation, maybe we should limit the trust group to 
IAXTEL 700 numbers as this would be more useful than none at all.

/ed






-----Original Message-----
From: dundi-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:dundi-bounces at lists.digium.com]On Behalf Of Mark Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:46 PM
To: Distributed Universal Number Discovery
Subject: RE: [Dundi] representation


If the numbers are unique, then we're fine :)  If we can't deliver them, 
then we don't advertise them.

That just leaves the remaining 1-700 issue.

Mark

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Bownes, Robert wrote:

> Please forgive my original US centric answer....This all applies only to
> the US and other countries in the NANP. The rest of the world handles
> 0800 numbers differently (of course the US has to be different).
>
> There are two separate but related issues:
>
>    +1.800 uniqueness
>    +1.800 routing
>
>
> In the NANP, toll free numbers (aka 800 numbers) are known as non
> geographic numbers, but geographic routing may still apply (by country),
> resulting in non routability in the 800 number pool. Interexchange
> carriers can also play routing games with 800 numbers based on a number
> of factors, including origin, time, etc.
>
> I went and did some research and confirmed that in the past the numbers
> were unique within a lata, but today, the numbers are unique.
>
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: Steve Kann [mailto:stevek at stevek.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:11 PM
> To: Distributed Universal Number Discovery
> Subject: Re: [Dundi] representation
>
>
> Florian Overkamp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Citeren "Bownes, Robert"  <mailto:Robert.Bownes at ogs.state.ny.us>
> <Robert.Bownes at ogs.state.ny.us>:
>
>
>
> The problem with 800 numbers is that they are not unique. The same 800
>
> number may be routed differently on a LATA or geographic basis. See
>
> http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/nonGeoNpasInServiceReport.do?method=disp
>
>
> layNonGeoNpasInServiceReport for a list of the non geographic numbers.
>
>
>
>
>
> Uhm, I'm not in the US, so correct me if I'm wrong, but in the
> Netherlands, the least
>
> thing you can expect is that a 0800 number belongs to one organisation.
> Therefore, if
>
> this organisation chooses to publish the number through DUNDi, they
> should never
>
> have to expect conflicts with other organisations. They control the
> route (as they
>
> should) and they can decide wether or not to deal with it in a certain
> way. We can also
>
> choose what to do with 0800 numbers called by mobile users. This has two
> purposes:
>
> the cost to accept the call is higher, but also we can route differently
> based on the
>
> fact we have no clue about their whereabouts.
>
>
>
> I don't think this is a problem. People disclosing 0800 numbers through
> the e164
>
> context in DUNDi should consider callers coming in on this route as
> 'roaming'. No
>
> assumptions on whereabouts can be made.
>
>
>
> Or am I missing something here ?
>
>
>
>
> Yes,  if  Robert is correct, what you're missing is that "The problem
> with 800 numbers is that they are not unique".  So, for example, you
> could have a number +1 800 234 5678 which goes to one company when
> called from some US states, but goes to another company when called from
> other US states.
>
> I don't know if that is (still?) correct, but I do remember in the past
> my family's business needed to have a separate toll-free number for
> callers in 49 states, and a different number for callers in our home
> state, and that callers using the wrong one would not get through.
>
> I'm not sure if those numbers which were for in-state calls only were
> assigned to different entities in other states..  It seems pretty insane
> to do that, but who knows.  5 minutes of googling didn't seem to give me
> an answer..
>
> -SteveK
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Dundi mailing list
Dundi at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/dundi