Subject: Re: GLP, number portability and wireless subscribers

From: "Greg Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:46:15 -0800

Matt Squire wrote:
>I've received similar comments from several providers.  This is one of
>things I was going to bring up when discussing general data representation
>issues.  Scope has applicability to 1-800 numbers, but it also has
>applicability to private/corporate numbers.

< some comments cut>

>What do folks think about the necessity of a 'scope' attribute for
> (a) 1-800
> (b) corporate/private addresses
>(ie would I be wasting my time trying to address this concern?)

I think as long as there is a real world requirement for it, the protocol
would need to support it.

With the peer group and a hierarchy scheme I outlined earlier, a scope
becomes a proper definition/configuration of a peer group. A gateway
can belong to more than one peer group on one level. The members
in a peer group does not need to be geographically/topologically
adjacent. Corporate/private numbers can be supported by defining
a peer group for the corporate VPN and having the gateways in the
peer group exchanging their number advertisement privately within
the peer group.

- Greg

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

---

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:34:50 -0500

Or, alternatively, project all numbers into a global, unambiguous space.
This seems cleaner and much less error prone than topologically
established scope boundaries, and less administratively burdensome than
solving the problem of scope name collisions and information propagation
boundaries. It also avoids having to talk about translations between
scopes, which I'm sure will happen when the other shoe drops :-).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Zhang [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 3:46 PM
> To: Jonathan Rosenberg; Matt Squire
> Cc: [email-masked]; John Schnizlein; David R. Oran; Scott Petrack;
> Alok Mittal; iptel
> Subject: Re: GLP, number portability and wireless subscribers
>
>
> Matt Squire wrote:

---------