[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VoIP peering: contradiction in terms
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
> 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
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.
To unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.