- Previous message: (no name): "The Cidr Report"
- In reply to: Roland Perry: "Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal"
- Next in thread: Roland Perry: "Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Andy Davidson (no email)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2008 - 06:36:34 EST
On 25 Jan 2008, at 10:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <>, Matt Palmer <
> > writes
>> Tunnels all over the place seems like the only way it'd even be
>> halfway practical. It's more-or-less how phone number portability
>> works anyway, from what (little) I know.
> I don't know about the USA, but in the UK it's done with something
> similar to DNS. The telephone system looks up the first N digits of
> the number to determine the operator it was first issued to. And
> places a query to them. That either causes the call to be accepted
> and routed, or they get an answer back saying "sorry, that number
> has been ported to operator FOO-TEL, go ask them instead".
Not quite, the simplistic overview is that operators have an
obligation to offer porting wherever practical, so operate ports on a
accept-then-forward principal. If I port my number from CarrierA to
CarrierB, then my calls still pass through A's switch, who transits
the call to B without charging the end user.
For the benefit of completeness, the regulator has mandated that this
situation must change, as CarrierB's inward-port customers are not
protected from the technical or commercial failure of CarrierA. The
industry [www.ukporting.com] has responded and is building a framework
to support all-call-query style lookups to handle number ports.
Best wishes,
Andy
|
|
|