[VoiceOps] 10 digit craziness
hch at sipster.com
Wed Dec 23 11:38:31 EST 2009
The caveat being, if you deviate in any way from the Provider defaults,
some of them have a bad habit of reverting your trunk to their internal
N-digit standard when some random tech goes through periodic cleanup or
upgrades (not that we've ever seen that happen :-}.
That said, 110% agreed. now if only we can convince the Providers...
David Hiers wrote:
> I'm all for e.164 everywhere, no assumptions required.
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
>> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
>>> I'm kinda sick of all of us US-based folk thinking we don't have to use
>>> our country code. I think all wholesale VoIP providers, even if they just
>>> handle US/Canada, should require the use of the leading country code for
>>> calls, NANPA-terminated included, and for origination that CallerID should
>>> ALWAYS include the country code.
>> I agree that country code plus number is the bare minimum, but I've only run
>> into one carrier that refused to ("couldn't") do that. Ironic because they
>> also do international origination, so calls are delivered to us without any
>> way to know if they are US area+number or country+number.
>>> You know how hard it is to standardize, both internally and globally,
>>> when most telecom providers only support 10 digit caller ID? What about
>>> the UK? What about China? And when callerID comes in, and it doesn't
>>> conform to NANPA NPANXXXXXX, what country IS it from? I can guess, but
>>> I'd like to know, not guess.
>> I've never run into an issue with the CID side of things. I don't think
>> it's that important, but maybe others do. We just pass it along as it is.
>> Carlos Alvarez
>> Advanced phone services simplified
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the VoiceOps