[cisco-voip] E.164 dialing

Tue Jul 15 11:40:01 EDT 2008

Hi..

Makes sense..

The UK dialplan is fairly well documented on that site... you can download
it from there if you dont have it already..
I see what you mean though.. I had a slightly different interpretation..
I was thinking that it would actually be more like a public IP address..
i.e. assigned to a Corporation, and under their management...
So I still think its going to be managed by Ofcom and assigned for certain
purposes..
Again I think you can check allocations on the Ofcom site as well possibly..

We need an RFC1918 for E164 hey? :)

Cheers,

Tim

On 7/15/08, Ryan O'Connell <Roconnell at unislumin.com> wrote:
>
>   Hi Tim
>
>
>
> Why E.164 ? Size and scope dictate I need to go at least 10 digits, with
> UCM 7 they support E.164. Also E.164 is standards based so all the other
> components that will be sharing this dialplan such as OCS, Tandberg, Mitel,
> and Nortel should get along.
>
>
>
> SRND – Yes I have reviewed UCM versions 5 through 7 of the SRND
>
>
>
> Corporate numbering – Thanks for that URL very interesting but somewhat
> misleading. If you note in section S.3  it states that *"Corporate
> numbering is a new type of service dedicated primarily to businesses with
> private telecoms networks. The corporate numbering range would allow
> businesses to have their own identifiable part of the Scheme to meet their
> telecoms needs and allow greater flexibility in the use of the numbers. It
> could also ease the integration of businesses' public and private numbering
> schemes" *which leads me to believe we can use these numbers just as we
> would using 10.0.0.0 subneting but as you read further through the
> document it becomes less clear. J
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Ryan
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* smithsonianwa at gmail.com [mailto:smithsonianwa at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Tim Smith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:05 AM
> *To:* Ryan O'Connell
> *Cc:* Justin Steinberg; cisco-voip at puck-nether.net; Matt Slaga (US)
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] E.164 dialing
>
>
>
> Hi Ryan...
>
>
>
> "Corporate Numbering" is not a private numbering space.. I believe it is
> some sort of service, like personal numbering..
>
>
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/numbering/2003/05nums0303.htm.#3
>
>
>
> Have you taken a look at the CUCM SRND? It has some good stuff on dial
> plans with site codes etc..
>
>
>
> Why make everything E164...?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 7/14/08, *Ryan O'Connell* <Roconnell at unislumin.com> wrote:
>
> Yes agreed and understood, in fact the plan is based on UC version 7. So
> back to my questions though, with E.164 NANP and E.164 with UK does anyone
> know if there are private numbers reserved? As far as I can see any Area
> code that repeats itself has not been assigned to any NANP number as of yet
> except for 888. They have been set aside as ERC (Easily Recognizable Codes)
> numbers. This being said it doesn't clearly define if these numbers will
> ever be introduced as NANP numbers. So based on this using 444 XXX XXXX in
> NANP we should be safe. As for the UK it seems as though they set aside a
> block for "Corporate Numbering" 05x xxxx xxxx.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Justin Steinberg [mailto:jsteinberg at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 14, 2008 7:45 AM
> *To:* Ryan O'Connell
> *Cc:* Matt Slaga (US); cisco-voip at puck-nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] E.164 dialing
>
>
>
> I agree with Matt.  so many changes in UC7, I would hold off making any
> significant dialplan changes until that release.
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Ryan O'Connell <Roconnell at unislumin.com>
> wrote:
>
> That's what I'm saying is that I shouldn't need the "+" if the number is a
> fully qualified E.164 number.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Slaga (US) [mailto:Matt.Slaga at us.didata.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:33 AM
> To: Ryan O'Connell; cisco-voip at puck-nether.net
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] E.164 dialing
>
> Unfortunately, you are going to have to wait for UCM 7.0 to have full
> E164 support.  Currently UCM throws up when it gets a '+'.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ryan O'Connell
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:54 PM
> To: cisco-voip at puck-nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] E.164 dialing
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a Dialplan that is based on E.164 numbers. Essentially
> all internal DN's will be the fully qualified E.164 number without the
> "+" so for NANP that will be 11 digits and in Europe it will consist of
> country-code followed by local exchange. Using partitions and CSS's to
> maintain interal 4 digit dialing intra-site and full E.164 inter-site.
> For DID's the above plan is pretty straight forward but for non-DID's I
> can't seem to find any ranges within the NANP that are designated as
> private addresses. So if I want to assign 100 DN's to be voicemail ports
> or lobby phones or whatever I was wondering what I should make these
> numbers so that it doesn't overlap with any PSTN numbers.
>
> If anyone can share thoughts or their experiences in this area that
> would be helpful thanks
>
>
> Ryno
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Disclaimer:
>
> This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
> designated addressee(s) named above only.  If you are not the
> intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
> this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
> this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
> from your computer. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20080715/15dc021a/attachment-0001.html>