<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [FWD] Introduction of new FWD "experimental" service - FWD Vanity Numbers

  • To: "Free World Dialup - The Future of Dialing" < >
    < >
  • From: "Stastny Richard" < >
  • Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 21:48:18 +0200

Hi Daniel,
I like your picture, but you got it the wrong way around:
If I consider SIP as the railroad, the native scheme is sip: URIs,
the PSTN/ISDN is the street and the native scheme is E.164,
and the crossing is ENUM.
But if you use numbers in SIP, you are a streetcar or tram, so
you have to obey the traffic rules eg E.164.
I agree with you that FWD may  ignore the NANP, but not
the global public telephone numbers (E.164)

	-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
	Von: Daniel Berninger [
] Gesendet: Fr 08.08.2003 17:44 An: FWD@localhost Cc: Betreff: Re: [FWD] Introduction of new FWD "experimental" service - FWD Vanity Numbers As one vote, FWD should completely ignore NANP. Worrying about NANP is like forcing automobiles to travel only along railroads. FWD can address issues that come up on a case by case basis consistent with a focus on the needs and interests of end users. One does need special treatment at "railroad crossings" (i.e. PSTN interconnects), but FWD represents a terrific opportunity to introduce new thinking. Dan http://www.intercommunication.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@localhost To: FWD@localhost Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [FWD] Introduction of new FWD "experimental" service - FWD Vanity Numbers Hi Jeff, hi Ed, In principle I think the introduction of vanity numbers and nicknames (proper SIP addresses) is a good idea, but: the mess in numbering you are creating together with sipphone.com is NOT a good idea. If you would set up a complete new numbering and dialing plan, ok, but you should keep in mind always compatibility with E.164. But what you and especially sipphone.com are doing is even worse: sipphone is giving away numbers looking like NANP numbers: 1-747-xxx-xxxx, but the NPA 747 is unassigned. They also map some "real" numbers in, eg 411 and 1-800-555-1212 All these numbers are at least consistent with the closed NANP (1-10D), and you also can dial "locally" with 7 digits So people may think they are using the NANP, but this is not true. Also these numbers cannot be dialed from the PSTN. Very funny are the cross connections to FWD (393) , iptel.org (477) and Iaxtel (700), all using unassigned or reserved NPA. In case of FWD and iptel.org this is breaking the closed NANP by allowing any number of digits (instead of 7). So this never can be mapped onto E.164 If you are now creating vanity numbers behind 393, allowing 6 to 26!!! digits, this is very weird, considering also that a complete E.164 may have only 15 digits. So even if by miracle FWD, sipphone or iptel.org may get finally these NPAs assigned, it would not work. BTW, it is also weird for global services to align numbers to the NANP, you should align to international E.164. This will be very confusing for users and also be unresolvable in the future if VoIP and PSTN should be linked. You are missing a big chance to create a numbering plan compatible with E.164, because by being able to set up a numbering plan from scatch you could avoid the pitfalls and restrictions other numbering plan administrators have for historical reasons, but you have to obey some basic rules and conventions. BTW, how could I dial any international E.164 number in FWD? '0', '00', '011'? (Always keep in mind you have a global service) I think one should first set up a consistent numbering and dialing plan first and then create numbers. I am currently writing a draft on Numbering on VoIP and will send you a copy as soon as im finished (approx. one week). I also hope we may have a talk on this at the VON in Boston. best regards Richard

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>