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 ofvoice, 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.
J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
-- 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/>.