Subject: Re: number portability

From: "Greg Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:04:36 -0800

Matt Squire wrote:
>GLP as provides a service to the caller.  Things like 800 numbers provide
>services to the callee.  What motiviation do call-routing providers have to
>route 800 numbers efficiently?  Call-routing provider X could decide to use
>a GW on the west coast for all calls to my 800 number, which is actually
>translated to a number on the east coast.  I could bitch to my 800 number
>provider, but what could they do?  With 'normal' numbers, the caller gets
>billed, and poor routing means lost customers, but not here.  As an 800
>number owner, I do not want my 800 number handled by any other provider's
>call-routing unless I have assurance that it is routed efficiently.  And
>without regulation, I won't get that assurance.

I think what we are talking about is a case of multiple gateways in a
network
that advertise service or connectivity to a 800 number at the same time.
These gateways can be gateways attached to the network of one provider,
or gateways from serveral different providers. Since it is callee pay, the
callee or its provider will need to advertise a preference or priority or
even
cost as a attribute for its attached gateways. Other gateways also
advertising
the connectivity to this 800 number will have a lower preference or priority
value.
Only when the primary provider's gateways cannot be reached, a call is
routed
through the other gateways. Multiple gateways that attached to the primary
provider can also be differentiated through the preference/priority/cost or
distance metric. LS on the west coast will resolve the 800 number to the
primary provider's west coast gateway while a LS on the east coast will
resolve it to the provider's east coast gateway. Would this be a
satisfactory
protocol solution?

Best regards,

- Greg

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