AW: Private Numbering Plans and the Called/Calling party number I Es
ernst.horvath at SIEMENS.AT
Mon Sep 3 12:26:34 EDT 2001
the reason for these complicated rules is backwards compatibility.
Originally numbers were only used in implicit form and assumed to be "(more
or less) E.164" (this alternative of an alias address is now more correctly
termed "dialled digits"). The indicator "private numbering plan" meant that
the UUI contained the alias address. With version 2, structured party
numbers were introduced (E.164 and private numbering plans). Still, the
decision between party number information elements and UUI address-fields
was mostly left to the implementor.
This unsatisfactory situation is clarified in version 4. The main principles
- for a calling number in implicit form or explicit E.164 form, use the
calling party number information element, but for an explicit PNP number use
the sourceAddress field;
- for a destination number in implicit form or explicit E.164 form, use the
called party number information element, but for an explicit PNP number use
the destinationAddress field (exception: in INFORMATION messages used for
overlap sending, PNP number digits are also transported in the called party
number information element);
- for a connected number, use the infornmtion element (here the PNP
indicator has no special meaning);
- in all other cases use the UUI fields.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Frank Derks [mailto:frank.derks at PHILIPS.COM]
> Gesendet am: Dienstag, 21. August 2001 14:32
> An: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
> Betreff: Private Numbering Plans and the Called/Calling party
> number IEs
> 126.96.36.199/H.225.0 and 188.8.131.52/H.225.0 state that if the
> numbering plan information is set to "private" (in a packet
> based network originated call), that this indicates that the
> number itself is _not_ present in the IE, but in the
> User-User information.
> This is not the case for the Connected Number, as this is
> encoded per Q.951.
> Strangely enough 7.3.10/H.225.0 states (under the description
> of destinationAddress) that, if an endpoint uses only a
> dialled digit string that this address _shall_ be placed in
> the Called party number IE and (under the description of
> sourceAddress) that
> if the source has an E.164 address that this _shall_ be
> contained in the Calling party number IE. This would seem to
> contradict the statements in 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11.
> Furthermore, it is not clear to me why private numbers can't
> just be put in the Called/Calling party number IEs?
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com
More information about the sg16-avd