Subject: number portability

From: Matt Squire <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:53:02 -0500

One other issue on number portability while we're discussing it... 

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.  

So although I agree that we can include 800 numbers in GLP and route on
them just like any other number, we might be opening things up for
regulatory problems.  This is probably outside the scope of this wg, but
its another reason to perform translation before call-routing, and to be
silent on the 800 number issue in our specs.   

- Matt

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

---

From: "Greg Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:49:07 -0800

There are some significant differences between 900, 800, 700 numbers
and portable numbers. The former can be viewed as virtual numbers.
They are translated and/or routed to a real number call by call routing
process. In 800 case, callee pays. In 900 and 700 cases, caller pays.
In all cases, the real number is not revealed to the caller. The network
can routes the call to different real numbers based on caller's
geographical location and time of day etc. Even in the case of 900
and 700 numbers, caller has no choice of how to route the call. True?

The portable numbers as in Local Number Portability are real numbers.
They are used by caller in dialing. Caller pays for the call. Caller can
choose the carrier to deliver the call. The call is routed based on a
static mapping of the physical phone.

There are some other cases we also need to think about and cover
in the protocol too. With CT-2 and PCS, some phone companies
has been trying to offer a new type of service that will let a subscriber
to have one phone number and ring that subscriber either at his/her
office phone, home phone, the mobile, or his/her voice mail box.
Note this service is different from regular call forwarding. With
minimal notification or logic, your call will follow you and try to
track you down whereever you are.

Another class of problem will be wireless subscribers, to support
mobility in one operator's network and allow perhaps seamless
roaming across the network, you will need to keep track of where
the mobile is currently at and advertisement that location information.

All these cases ideally should be handled by the GLP nicely. With the
flexibility and robustness of the TCP/IP based Internet, the
benefit of hind sight and starting from scratch , a Internet based
telephony solution should not only match the capabilities of current
state-of-the-art practise in the PSTN world, but also do it better and
be able to provide many value added services that is not possible
or just too costly to provision in the PSTN network. I think with some
proper design, we can achieve this goal.

- Greg

---------

---

From: Matt Squire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:37:52 -0500

My SLA as a 800 number owner is with provider X.  Caller A may have a SLA
as an iptel user with provider Y.  Unless provider X and Y have an
agreement, caller A could get routed to any gateway when connecting to my
800 number, and since the call is free to caller A, he won't care, leaving
me to pay the PSTN charges to provider X.  To me, fixing this problem
implies mandated SLAs between providers, and mandated inter-provider SLAs
equates to regulation.  

I just realized that several other folks expressed similar concerns in
recent postings, pointing out the make the 800 number translations visible
on the IP side.  What a lousy time for the mail exploder to get screwy.  

Anyway, I guess my whole point was that unless we try to solve the reverse
charging problem, we cannot claim that GLP provides "800" services.  We may
be able to provide some features of 800 numbers, for example, portability,
but we need to be careful and separate the individual features that we can
provide from what people expect from an 800 number service.  The service
may be built using GLP and other stuff (directory lookups, integrated
databases with SCPs, etc), but GLP itself does not provide the service.  

I tried to express this when addressing 'data issue 1: phone numbers' in a
recent post.  This will probably show up on the list in a day or two:(

At 09:00 AM 3/12/99 -0600, Mike Gettles wrote:
>It's called SLA (Service Level Agreement).  You specify as part of the
>service contract what level of performance you require.  Look to the
>carriers that are willing to put their money where their mouth is, i.e.
>financial penalties for failure to perform. It is incumbent on you to
>measure that performance but you can get the carrier to supply you with
>the information you need as part of the management reports package that
>goes with the service.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: msquire [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 7:53 AM
>To: iptel
>Cc: msquire
>Subject: number portability
>
>
>

---------