[Dundi] representation

[John Todd]

At 4:24 PM -0400 on 10/26/04, Ed Guy wrote:
>[snip]
>
>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
[snip]

So, another way of saying this is that +1-700 numbers are e.164 
compliant, but they should not be routed outside of the ITAD that 
defines them in a specific way.

By this definition, it would be difficult to argue on their inclusion 
into an external announcement into the e164 context, which is global 
in nature.  By including Digium's +1-700 ranges as an exception, that 
opens the door to other "provider-specific" announcements in the 
future.  Thin edge of the wedge and all that...  I can think of four 
different providers who might be able to use similar arguments to try 
to get their routes into the e164 context, which would lead to a very 
quick pollution and distrust of the table.

I'd love to see IAXTEL numbers there, but I don't think it's 
appropriate if this is going to be a protocol that is used by others 
outside of the Asterisk community.  Otherwise, it's playing 
favorites.  We have other ways of looking up IAXTEL numbers if that's 
a desired outcome; ENUM or IAX handoffs to the Digium server would 
work just as well.

JT