Re: VoIP peering: contradiction in terms

[John Todd <jtodd@loligo.com>]

At 7:48 PM +0100 5/17/04, Linus Surguy wrote:
>  > Well, here's my definition of VoIP peering - it's open for revision:
> >     "The ability for two administrative entities to directly or
> ...snip...
>  > protocols, and other relevant details which relate to the passing of
> >  voice, video, or other media over the underlaying IP network."
>
> Here's one for discussion, is it appropriate for E.164 to be in a
> definition? Whilst we as service providers might be exchanging numbering as
> well as voice traffic, is it always E.164 numbering or could it be private
> numbering?

Yes, sure.  As an enterprise user, I suspect I'd have lots of 
non-E.164 numbers running around in my route tables, just like 
enterprise users have RFC1918 address ranges in their IGP's.

I wasn't sure how to phrase my comments for the wider audience, so I 
just used E.164 to be specific.  Using "telephone number" seems a bit 
generic since each nation has it's own internal numbering schemes, 
but there is only one numbering method for E.164.   As an example, 
here in the US we use "011" as a prefix for international calls, 
which I don't think should be included in any routing scheme, so I 
opted for the more specific definition of E.164's requirements.

JT

--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.