Subject: [Enum] Q on portable numbers

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:36:07 -0500

Since portable numbers don't themselves imply any sort of routing hierarchy,
I think of them as being more analogous to MAC addresses than to IP
addresses. (The NPDB does the translation to a real E.164 number?)

What's the accepted policy on these? Are they still considered to be E.164?
If you move between countries, are you allowed to keep your portable number?

This should not impact enum, since one might not know whether the number is
portable or not?

Bert
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: James Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 14:15:06 -0600

Bert,

Please see my responses.

James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 1:36 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Enum] Q on portable numbers
> 
> 

The NPDB maps an end user's E.164 number to a routing number.  In the North
American, it is called Location Routing Number (LRN), a ten-digit North
American Numbering Plan Number (e.g., a national E.164 number, or an E.164
number without country code 1).  The "routing number" is Europe is called a
routing prefix.  Its length may vary depending on the country and it
identifies either the serving network (another DB query at the serving
network may be needed to determine the serving switch) or a serving switch.
The dialed E.164 number is analogous to the domain name instead of the MAC
address.   The LRN or routing prefix (adding the country code to have the
"international" flavor) may be analogous to the IP address but is not quite
the same.  Because in many cases, an IP address identifies an end point
(e.g., host). If NAT is used, then that NAT's IP address is analogous to the
LRN or Routing prefix.  The MAC address is analogous to the line card at the
GSTN switch. 

> If you move between countries, are you allowed to keep your 

Number portability supported today is called service provider portability.
No location change.  Location portability will happen eventually.  For
example, in the U.S., it may first begin at the state level, then at the
region level (U.S. is divided into seven regiions based on the seven
Regional Bell Operating Companies' serving areas), then whole nation. But
international number portability for the "regular" E.164 numbers (e.g.,
numbers assigned to typical phone users) may be a long way to go.

ITU-TS has defined some country codes for services such as Universal
Personal Telecommunications (UPT) service.   Country code 878 has been
assigned.  E.168 has the information about the UPT numbering plan.  878+878
has been reserved as a global code (to be used across national boundaries)
and 878 + country code is assigned to each country for assignment within
that country.  An administration process may be required to support the
global code assignment and to allow number portability.

> This should not impact enum, since one might not know whether 

ENUM is supposed to retrieve the information related to E.164 numbers,
ported or not, so that a client can make use of the information for call
routing, e-mail delivery or to go to other places for more information
(e.g., LDAP database).

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 09:25:08 +0100

Hello all,

I am Monika Muench from Alcatel Germany. I was involved in the 
standardisation work on Number Portabiltiy in Europe (ETSI) but also 
worldwide (ITU-T).

I want to make small corrections to James' reply regarding the NP 
solution in Europe.

In Europe and in the ITU-T standard the routing number is called 
"network routing number" and *not* "routing prefix".
The dialled number is called "directory number", that is the number 
which can be found in the telephone directory.

Regards,

Monika

------------------------------------------------
Monika Muench         email: [email-masked]
Alcatel Germany
D-70430 Stuttgart

----------
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] Q on portable numbers
Date: Monday, February 07, 2000 9:15PM

Bert,

Please see my responses.

James

---

From: James Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:27:22 -0600

Monica,

Thanks for providing the correct terms used in the ITU-T.  We should try to
use the standard terms as much as possible.

James

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:25 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:39:46 -0500

> which can be found in the telephone directory.

That makes sense to me. It says that the directory number is basically an
arbitrary number, used only for lookup purposes. As far as routing goes, it
is as flat as a MAC address is (compared with IP or other Layer 3 address).
Using a portable phone number would be a process sort of analogous to RARP
(Reverse ARP: station has its MAC address and has to acquire its IP address
from a server somewhere in the LAN). Only in this case, it is the routable
address of the destination that one is searching for.

I was wondering if, and why, these portable numbers would be called E.164,
and I guess the answer is that they are not, or soon will not be. So they
are outside the scope of this discussion.

But just to carry this on slightly longer, supporting truly globally
portable telephone numbers seems to me to be well within the capabilities of
the DNS. If these portable numbers can be identified, and they must be
identifiable, they can either be placed in the same database as e164.int or
they can be placed in exxx.int. No? Yes? Even the telephone community could
use the DNS for this, I would think.

Bert