Subject: Re: [Sipping] proposals for 2806bis

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 01:25:43 +0100

Hi Mike, Folks,
In answer to Mike Pierce's comments on the 2806bis-04 draft:
  It must be me. I'll try again.
Please give the line numbers within the draft that you believe state:
* that concatenation between the phone number and the context is EVER intended.
* that it is EVER intended to split an E.164 number between a context 
and a local number (your case 1).

As I don't understand your lack of uniqueness concerns clearly, could 
you re-state them.
 From your comments it appears your worry is with E.164 stub numbers, 
but I feel fairly sure that OfTel would state that +44 1794 had 
better be unique to Romsey. In any case, if my node is aware that it 
is connected via a line to the Romsey Exchange (and so has an E.164 
stub of +441794) then it can use this number. If it isn't, then it 
can't. Where is the lack of uniqueness?

Your Minnesotan example URI suggests that, in this small town, one 
can dial 911 and will get through to a valid local number. I have not 
been there so I can't say for sure, but I had thought that 911 is 
ALWAYS treated as a call to the Emergency Services.

My equivalent Romsey example would be 3666;phone-context=+44179483. 
This will work only if my E.164 stub number is in the range for Roke 
Manor. Don't try this at home, kids as it only works at Roke.

BTW, isn't gateway routing a TRIP problem?

atb,
   Lawrence
-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP