Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

There is also another scenario, which is actually implemented, and might
become more widespread. The ITU assigns directly to an operator (or
consortium of operators), the operators assigns to its customers, etc.  That
happens for numbers starting with +882 and +883. It seems to be of interest
for IOT because it removes the geographical association in the number.

And it seems to me that, in the IOT scenario, what Henning says below makes
a great deal of sense.

Best,

Richard

From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 00:54
To: DOLLY, MARTIN C
Cc: Richard Hill; McGarry, Tom; Modern List
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft

NRA delegates to registry (LNP, NANPA, etc.); registry delegates to carrier;
carrier loans/assigns/delegates (whatever the legal arrangement is;
substitute your favorite term) to some value-added service provider; VASP
assigns to GM and GM assigns number to car. This is the IOT case.

Or GM  assigns numbers from its "supply" to factory in Kokomo, IN; Delco
plant assigns to PBX extensions.

All of this should happen without having to employ a number manager to log
into a web site, submit a file via ftp or send a fax.

Does that make sense? 

Henning

  _____  

From: DOLLY, MARTIN C <md3135@att.com>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: Richard Hill; McGarry, Tom; Modern List
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft 

Henning

Please expand on (3)

Thank you

Martin C Dolly 

Lead Member of Technical Staff

Core & Government/Regulatory Standards 

AT&T

Cell: 609-903-3360

Email: md3135@att.com

On Feb 29, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Henning Schulzrinne
<Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov> wrote:

My understanding (and the use cases draft may need clarity on that) is that
the two facets are largely independent. In other words, you should be able
to run a TDM network with step switches and allocate numbers via an IP-based
process, even if you may have to use a dial-up modem to get your IP packets.
(As far as I know, the current US-specific number management and porting
process is based, in part, on Internet protocols, just a bit on the dated
side.)

I think suggestions on removing US-specific language are useful. As
discussed in this thread, I do see six broad challenges that apply, in
combinations in many jurisdictions:

(1) IP transition

(2) porting (either newly-introduced or with new capabilities, e.g., between
different modes or geographies), possibly with mechanisms other than
voice-based validation of porting intent

(3) automation for multiple levels of delegation, whether for PBX or some
IOT applications

(4) accountability of both holdership and "meta" data (CNAM)

(5) improved number utilization, with more "just-in-time" processes

(6) more flexibility in the number and structure of registrars/registries
(including, for small countries, outsourcing to third parties rather than
creating technology specific to Liechtenstein)

My sense is that the US is facing more of these challenges than many
countries at this point, but they don't seem US-specific. This is not new -
TV whitespaces and emergency caller location for wireless were initially
largely US problems, too.

Henning

  _____  

From: Modern <modern-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Richard Hill
<rhill@hill-a.ch>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:44 AM
To: 'McGarry, Tom'; 'Modern List'
Subject: Re: [Modern] Nationwide Number Portability MODERN Use Case Draft 

Yes, but such a green field space can, and has been, implemented on the
PSTN, so the use of an all IP solution is  not a requirement.  Whereas your
draft implies that it is, unless I misunderstood something.

Best,

Richard

_______________________________________________
Modern mailing list
Modern@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/modern