subscribe, how to
barnaby at brooksnet.com
Wed Sep 2 13:49:50 EDT 1998
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
E-Mail: pete.cordell at bt-sys.bt.co.uk
Tel: +44 1473 646436
Fax: +44 1473 645499
>From: Chris Purvis WVdevmt-WS[SMTP:cpurvis at MADGE.COM]
>Sent: 02 September 1998 13:09
>To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
>Subject: Re: H.323 Addresses
>>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
>>have also recognized that some other variations of addressing schemes
>>For example, people change their physical locations, but they might have
>>keep the same E.164 addresses. So, a translation is needed. Therefore,
>>very physical relationship of E.164 addressing scheme (e.g., knowing
>>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:
>1. Mobile IP solves most of the problem for us - E.164 number resolves
>an IP address which may be anywhere in the world at any given moment in
>2. If a user wants to move (and take their number with them) to being
>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
>>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
>>provide solutions for the H.323 addressing schemes.
>I was under the impression that we'd reached closure on most of these
>Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software
>Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks.
>Phone:+44 1753 661359 email: cpurvis at madge.com
More information about the sg16-avd