Subject: Re: GLP, number portability and wireless subscribers

From: Matt Squire <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:03:11 -0500

>> 
>> Because of the above example, I think all types of translation (800
>> numbers or LNP) and mapping should occur prior to call routing. This is
>> particularly important for 800 numbers, because they have a regional
>> scope in many cases. The same 800 number may owned by company X in CA
>> and company Y in NY. In the above example, the call will be incorrectly
>> routed to company X instead of going to the originally intended
>> destination, company Y.
>
>This is another good example of why translation before gateway selection
>is a good idea. However, I'm not sure there is much we can do from a
>protocol perspective to prevent it. There may be valid reasons why a
>company would like to advertise an 800 number (only they own it, for
>example), and I'd rather not exclude this possibility. It seems like a
>sensible approach is to allow non-routing numbers in GLP, but mention
>that there are issues with them, and translation before routing is a
>good idea. Does this sound sensible?
>

This sounds like the right thing to do.  I think the framework document
should mention where and how translation of such numbers is expected/allowed.

- Matt

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: Scott Petrack <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:01:05 -0500 (EST)

> should mention where and how translation of such numbers is expected/allowed.

I agree with >> and less so with >  above. Translations
are just outside of Iptel scope.  
It is a separate can of worms, and we have enough of them on our plate 
already (I just love mixed metaphors). 

I think these sorts of translations 
might end up being in ENUM's scope eventually, when we get around to 
that. But let's agree that
GLP doesn't know about non-routing numbers. 

On a separate note.
Is there anything from malloc stuff or scoping of multicast addresses that
we can learn? Probably not, since each address carries its own scope, but
maybe there is. I haven't been following it.

Scottt

---------