Dear All,
It may not be possible to handle 800 numbers in the same way as other numbers as the destination may be based on the geographical location of the caller. For example, ISPs may be accessible by something like an 800 number which may be fixed for a whole country, but the POP you end up connected to may vary depending on where you called from.
I'm not sure what the implications of this are, but it is something to think about!!!
Regards,
Pete ================================= Pete Cordell BT Labs E-Mail: pete.cordell@bt-sys.bt.co.uk Tel: +44 1473 646436 Fax: +44 1473 645499 =================================
From: Chris Purvis WVdevmt-WS[SMTP:cpurvis@MADGE.COM] Sent: 02 September 1998 13:09 To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: H.323 Addresses
Radhika,
We are discussing about H.323 addresing schemes in our bi-weekly H.323 inter-GK conf calls.
The H.323 addresses that are being considered are 1. E.164, 2. E-mail,
URL, and 4. TCP/UDP/RTP port addresses (and 5. aliases as well I guess).
Although a hierarchical notion of addressing scehmes have been
discussed, we
have also recognized that some other variations of addressing schemes
are
there.
For example, people change their physical locations, but they might have
to
keep the same E.164 addresses. So, a translation is needed. Therefore,
the
very physical relationship of E.164 addressing scheme (e.g., knowing
NPAs
and NXXs, one can find the distance) has been broken.
I was under the impression that finally (after several weeks of discussion) we'd reached closure on this in last Thursday's call. The solution that I understood had been agreed came in two parts:
- Mobile IP solves most of the problem for us - E.164 number resolves
to an IP address which may be anywhere in the world at any given moment in time. 2. If a user wants to move (and take their number with them) to being in an administrative domain with an otherwise reasonably contiguous E.164 address space, this is easily handled as follows. The domain that "should" (in the hierarchical sense) "own" the number that the user is keeping holds a record of where to contact the current holder of that number (which will typically be an entity to which an LRQ message can be sent).
Another example can be 800 numbers where the translation is also needed.
It seemed to be agreed in the call that 800 numbers are not a special case, but merely an example of number portability.
In addition, from mobility point of view (device or person) wired (and wireless?) environement may also be looked into.
Does this mean anything at all?
As we go froward, we may consider many of those aspects as pointed above
to
provide solutions for the H.323 addressing schemes.
I was under the impression that we'd reached closure on most of these already.
Regards Chris
Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks. Phone:+44 1753 661359 email: cpurvis@madge.com
participants (1)
-
Pete Cordell