Subject: Re: AW: [Iptel] comments on rfc2806bis - 800 numbers

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:15:29 -0500

Mike,

I think it would be good to encourage the use of geo-location parameters if 
that is what is needed, rather than attempts to infer geo-location from 
telephone numbers.

As for the 800 number, even if it is unique, that does not guarantee how it 
may be used within anyone's dialing plans.  That is the monkey-wrench 
here.  Non-owners of the number may not route it.  Owners of the number may 
do unexpected things with it.

Mike H.

At 01:08 PM 11/29/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>In a message dated 11/27/2002 4:23:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>[email-masked] writes:
>
>
>>By saying same number assigned in multiple areas, do you mean numbers
>>without country code prefixes?
>
>
>[MAP] I think there have been several different concepts mentioned related 
>to free-phone (e.g. 800) numbers:
>
>1. In the US (and Canada), 800 numbers have often been applicable for 
>calls originating only from certain areas, i.e., only US, a group of 
>states, a single state, etc. This (theoretically) allows the same number 
>to be assigned in different areas to completely different users with 
>completely separate routing. I suspect this is still allowed.
>
>2. An 800 number (in the US/Canada) can be assigned which uses 
>"Intelligent Network" capabilities with a data base lookup so that the 
>actual routing is a function of the originator's location (i.e., calling 
>party number). (Example: route to nearest Pizza Hut.)
>
>3. The same 800 number may be allocated to the same company for use in 
>multiple countries. I'm looking for examples. The use of the number 
>depends on the location of the calling party. It is normally called only 
>when in one of those countries (without dialing a Country Code). Dialing 
>from outside the country, using the Country Code, is theoretically 
>possible, if allowed by agreements between the countries.
>
>4. The "International Freephone Service" uses the "800" in place of the 
>Country Code followed by 8 digits, that is, the assigned "IFS" number is 
>truly "global", however there is certainly still no guarantee that it can 
>be called from everywhere in the globe. ITU-T only requires that it be 
>used "between two or more countries". Use of these numbers requires that 
>the user be located within the assigned countries.
>
>Of course, all of these uses are based on knowing the originator's 
>location (or more precisely, the location of the equipment handling the 
>call set-up).
>
>Mapping this to the Internet case where there is no knowledge of the 
>location of the caller is a real challenge. I think that one reason for 
>the "context" being applied with such "800" numbers in 2806bis was to get 
>around this problem - that is - for the originator to indicate more 
>information about their location or the desired destination.
>
>For example, a user who is in US (or who doesn't even care where they are) 
>wants to call an "800-234-567" number in Germany. They put in the "800" 
>number and separately code the "49" country code for Germany in "context". 
>They could just as well represent the desired number as 
>+49-800-234-567  (One could apply the same reasoning to a regular number 
>in the US and put in only the final 7 digits, and code +1 and area code in 
>"context", but I believe we agreed not to allow that.)
>
>Another example of the possible use of context: The user codes the 
>destination +49-800-234-567 (full number) and puts their own location 
>(e.g., +1-410) in "context, meaning where they are physically located 
>(independent from their "identity"). The destination could use this 
>"context" to decide whether or not it should handle the call. This is 
>similar to the use of "context" when dealing with "private" numbers in 
>which the originator codes their own, and the other end can use it as a check.
>
>Another example of the use of "context" which is implied in the draft is 
>the ability to codes multiple "context" values, for example, the 
>originator codes the number as +49-800-234-567 and codes the "context" 
>with both 49 for Germany and 44 for UK. While it is certainly possible for 
>the same number to be assigned to the same company in both countries, it 
>has never been clear to me what function (multiple contexts) this would 
>serve. Would an 800 number valid in the entire US then require the 
>"context" to include every possible area code?
>
>
>Mike Pierce
>Artel

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:20:46 -0500

I doubt you meant parameter as 'tel' parameter, but just in case: we 
already have the caller preferences mechanism, which allows the caller 
to provide this type of information that the callee can use to route the 
request. For example, rather than specifying your own current location 
(in either geo or number coordinates), you may actually want to say 
"route this request to whoever can provide good service in X", where X 
is the location where I actually want the pizza, rather than my current 
en-route location.

Michael Hammer wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I think it would be good to encourage the use of geo-location parameters
> if that is what is needed, rather than attempts to infer geo-location
> from telephone numbers.
>
> As for the 800 number, even if it is unique, that does not guarantee how
> it may be used within anyone's dialing plans.  That is the monkey-wrench
> here.  Non-owners of the number may not route it.  Owners of the number
> may do unexpected things with it.
>
> Mike H.
>
>
> > [MAP] I think there have been several different concepts mentioned
> > related to free-phone (e.g. 800) numbers:
> >
> > states, a single state, etc. This (theoretically) allows the same
> > number to be assigned in different areas to completely different users
> > with completely separate routing. I suspect this is still allowed.
> >
> > actual routing is a function of the originator's location (i.e.,
> > calling party number). (Example: route to nearest Pizza Hut.)
> >
> > depends on the location of the calling party. It is normally called
> > only when in one of those countries (without dialing a Country Code).
> > Dialing from outside the country, using the Country Code, is
> > theoretically possible, if allowed by agreements between the countries.
> >
> > 4. The "International Freephone Service" uses the "800" in place of
> > the Country Code followed by 8 digits, that is, the assigned "IFS"
> > number is truly "global", however there is certainly still no
> > guarantee that it can be called from everywhere in the globe. ITU-T
> > only requires that it be used "between two or more countries". Use of
> > these numbers requires that the user be located within the assigned
> > countries.
> >
> > location (or more precisely, the location of the equipment handling
> > the call set-up).
> >
> > location of the caller is a real challenge. I think that one reason
> > for the "context" being applied with such "800" numbers in 2806bis was
> > to get around this problem - that is - for the originator to indicate
> > more information about their location or the desired destination.
> >
> > For example, a user who is in US (or who doesn't even care where they
> > are) wants to call an "800-234-567" number in Germany. They put in the
> > "800" number and separately code the "49" country code for Germany in
> > "context". They could just as well represent the desired number as
> > +49-800-234-567  (One could apply the same reasoning to a regular
> > number in the US and put in only the final 7 digits, and code +1 and
> > area code in "context", but I believe we agreed not to allow that.)
> >
> > Another example of the use of "context" which is implied in the draft
> > is the ability to codes multiple "context" values, for example, the
> > with both 49 for Germany and 44 for UK. While it is certainly possible
> > for the same number to be assigned to the same company in both
> > countries, it has never been clear to me what function (multiple
> > contexts) this would serve. Would an 800 number valid in the entire US
> > then require the "context" to include every possible area code?
> >
> >
> > Mike Pierce
> > Artel

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:27:38 -0500

Correct.  Whatever parameter explicitly describes location.

Mike H.

At 10:20 AM 12/2/2002 -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>already have the caller preferences mechanism, which allows the caller to 
>provide this type of information that the callee can use to route the 
>request. For example, rather than specifying your own current location (in 
>either geo or number coordinates), you may actually want to say "route 
>this request to whoever can provide good service in X", where X is the 
>location where I actually want the pizza, rather than my current en-route 
>location.
>
>Michael Hammer wrote:
>
>>Mike,
>>