[VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.

Thu Aug 30 14:05:35 EDT 2018

Thanks for the vote of confidence Adam! LOL!

Mike......while I do have clients that I do everything for, I never 
insist on operating that way because it makes both of us too dependent 
on each other. I have a lot of clients that only seek my help from time 
to time because they only need help from time to time, so I charge on a 
per hour basis for service provided rather than a monthly basis. I've 
found what works best for everyone involved is to train my clients on 
the tasks that are simple or repetitive and advise / do the work for the 
non-repetitive tasks that require more skill / experience. I've been 
doing it this way for 18 years and I've never run out of work, so it 
works well for everyone involved! If you''re interested feel free to 
give me a call! If not, that's okay too.

Mary Lou Carey

BackUP Telecom Consulting

Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary)

Cell: 615-796-1111

On 2018-08-30 09:04 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I'm looking for one part (perhaps even two parts) educational and one
> part get it fixed.
> 
> Fixing it could be as simple as not sending sending that traffic to
> that tandem anymore. Easiest and cheapest (unless volume dictates
> otherwise) way, though perhaps not the best. I've also made inquiries
> to Frontier as to what services they have that could help solve this,
> be it some value-add to take it to that tandem for me anyway, a DS1 to
> that other tandem, etc. I've also reached out to others (including
> Centurylink) for quoting out that transport. Probably need some other
> paperwork as well (not sure if we have an ICA with them or not, I'm
> guessing not), but I'm sure they'll tell me what I need to connect
> when I ask to connect.
> 
> I'm one of those guys that likes to understand a situation vs.
> outsourcing from the beginning. Sure, outsourcing may end up being the
> best way of implementing it, but I can't just always take everyone at
> their word and then not understand what's going on when things go
> sideways.
> 
> The summary seems to be that Comcast did something wrong (or at least
> unconventionally) and now I have to do extra work\expense to work
> around it.
> 
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> FROM: "Adam Vocks" <Adam.Vocks at cticomputers.com>
> TO: "Mike Hammett" <voiceops at ics-il.net>, paul at timmins.net
> CC: voiceops at voiceops.org
> SENT: Thursday, August 30, 2018 8:04:06 AM
> SUBJECT: RE: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.
> 
> Hi Mike, if you have money to throw at the problem, I think I'd just
> hire Mary to track down and fix the problem for you.  She's obviously
> knowledgeable, probably has enough contacts and is now familiar with
> your problem.
> 
> Adam
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of
> Mike
> Hammett
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 7:17 AM
> To: paul at timmins.net
> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org
> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.
> 
> 1) How do I find an appropriate contact to ask?
> 2) From what Mary has said, Comcast is doing it wrong in my area. I
> suppose it's useful to know how something is SUPPOSED to be done and
> acknowledge that it very well could be very different in production.
> 
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: paul at timmins.net
> To: voiceops at ics-il.net, voiceops at voiceops.org,
> marylou at backuptelecom.com
> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org, marylou at backuptelecom.com
> Sent: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:04:33 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.
> 
> <div dir="auto">The block owner often has a connection to the ILEC
> tandem for their block in that range, but that's not always
> necessary (I don't have any ilec FGD groups in the Chicago LATA,
> so
> it's not universally necessary).<div dir="auto"><br></div><div
> dir="auto">The only way to know for certain is to check the LERG or
> just
> ask the carrier, which is what I usually do because I don't like
> giving money to iconnectiv, since they tend to like to send me legally
> cartoonish Cease and Descists every few years for the last
> decade.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div
> class="gmail_quote">On Aug 29, 2018 21:49, Mike Hammett
> <voiceops at ics-il.net> wrote:<br><blockquote><html><head><style>p
> {
> margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style="font-family:
> arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000">So then
> in
> my situation:
>  https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&
> amp;exchange=901<br><br><br>Comcast has 815-901 as
>   well as
>   815-901-0. Verizon Wireless has 1k-8k. 9k I guess would be either
> not
> provisioned or default back to Comcast because they have the 10k
> block.
> Because they have the parent 10k block, are they then required to have
> a
> connection to the tandem I'm on anyway? The 1k block I now
> understand could be elsewhere, but the 10k?<br><br>Interesting that
> AT&T U-Verse voice isn't on legacy AT&T
> infrastructure.<br><br><div><span></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike
> Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing
> Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br><br><br>Midwest Internet
> Exchange<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<br><br><span></span><br></div><br>
> <hr id="zwchr"><div
> style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:n
> one;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From:
> </b>paul at timmins.net<br><b>To: </b>voiceops at ics-il.net,
> voiceops at voiceops.org, marylou at backuptelecom.com<br><b>Cc:
> </b>voiceops at voiceops.org, marylou at backuptelecom.com<br><b>Sent:
> </b>Wednesday,
>   August
>  29, 2018 7:08:15 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems,
> etc.<br><br><div dir="auto">Thousands blocks are basically just a
> fancy
> LNP operation. Your tandem homing has to follow 10k blocks, and the 1k
> blocks are basically mass ported to your LRN. Even if the numbers are
> usually homed a certain way because they are in a ratecenter, they
> won't be in this case because they are ported numbers and supposed
> to be routed to your LRN. Example would be the Detroit LATA where
> there
> are about 6 or so AT&T and other tandems. I'm homed off
> WBFDMIMN20T. The local carrier has local/local toll trunks to me all
> over the place, but all intercarrier calls and out of area calls other
> than local traffic from AT&T LEC comes through my LRN 248-574-7678
> off WBFDMIMN20T. This saves me from having to create FGD trunking
> ports
> to all the other tandems in the region, only the barely used
> local/intra
> trunking from AT&T ILEC, who has moved most customers to their
> uverse VoIP
>   affilia
>  te here, and those don't use the local/intra trunks either.<div
> dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It lowers my capex and opex
> having
> potentially over provisioned/underutilized trunking all over the
> place,
> saves numbers and decreases the need for splits and overlays, and even
> saves at&t money. Only people who lose out are ribbon and
> metaswitch
> (and whoever supports at&ts 5ESS and EWSD deployments) on
> licensing
> and support costs for unneeded channels.</div></div><div
> class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 29, 2018
> 19:51,
> Mike Hammett <voiceops at ics-il.net>
> wrote:<br><blockquote><style>p
> { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family:
> arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000"><font
> face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:
> 10pt;">"</span></font><span style="font-family: "Times New
> Roman"; font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
> 255);">they give you market entry without the technic
>  al need
>  to establish extra homing arrangements that aren't beneficial to
> you."</span><div><br></div><div>Could you elaborate on
> that?<br><br><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
> font-size: 10pt;"><span></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike
> Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing
> Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br><br><br>Midwest Internet
> Exchange<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<br><br><span></span><br></div><br>
> <hr id="zwchr" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
> font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial,
> sans-serif;
> font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style:
> normal; text-decoration: none;"><b>From:
> </b>paul at timmins.net<br><b>To:
> </b>marylou at backuptelecom.com, ptimmins at clearrate.com,
> voiceops at voiceops.org<br><b>Cc: </b>voiceops at voiceops.org,
> ptimmins at clearrate.com<br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, August 29, 2018
> 6:05:39 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems,
> etc.<br><br><div dir="auto">I've had some i
>  nteresti
>  ng arguments with other carriers regarding their obligation to
> connect
> to us. Oh, you aren't connected where I'm homed? Go order
> connectivity then.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">They have
> a
> little more power to make demands when you have more than 24 standing
> calls to them, but by and large with these stubborn providers we never
> do, and when they have complained i've given them a location they
> can install 1 way trunks to me at (as I have no desire to terminate
> traffic to them directly), and they always balk and find some other
> way
> of dealing with it because it was all well and good until it was their
> money they were spending instead of mine. The trick ends up being to
> never do 10k blocks when you don't have to. Thousands blocks
> aren't just great for number consolidation, they give you market
> entry without the technical need to establish extra homing
> arrangements
> that aren't beneficial to you. Sure sometimes you're the guy
> who
> has to own
>   the 10k
>   block, bu<blockquote><p>That's true if the ILEC has an agreement
> with the tandem provider. There
> are some little ILECs that have their own tandem and refuse to use the
> 
> big ILEC tandem provider! You have to look at the routing of the ILEC
> switch in the LERG to figure that out.
> 
> Mary Lou Carey
> 
> BackUP Telecom Consulting
> 
> Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary)
> 
> Cell: 615-796-1111
> 
> On 2018-08-29 11:38 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
> > You don't actually have to establish connectivity to all
> ILECs
> in an
> > area, even if you are porting out numbers from their ratecenters.
> The
> > ILECs already have to have a way to reach any other tandem in the
> LATA
> > so as long as you have an LRN homed on A tandem in the area, and
> port
> > your numbers to that, you're good to go.
> >
> > The ILECs don't LIKE it, but if we cared what they truly
> liked
> we'd
> > all just leave the market.
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2018 12:33, BackUP Telecom Consulting
> >  wrote:
> >
> > When there are multiple ILECs in a LATA like in LA - LATA 730,
> you
> > would
> > set up an interconnection point with each ILEC. So you'd have
> one for
> > the AT&T areas and one for the old Verizon areas. When you
> have
> trunks
> >
> > to both carriers in the LATA, you can use your own network to
> switch
> > traffic from the one LATA to the other LATA, but you can't
> deliver it
> > to
> > the ILEC and expect them to hand it off to the other ILEC. It
> would
> > work
> > the same with the third party providers.......as long as they
> have
> a
> > connection in both ILEC areas, then they can use their own
> network
> to
> > deliver the traffic from the one ILEC area to the other ILEC
> area.
> >
> > Mary Lou Carey
> >
> > BackUP Telecom Consulting
> >
> > Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary)
> >
> > Cell: 615-796-1111
> >
> > On 2018-08-28 08:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >> I thought everyone connected to the ILEC-hosted tandem
> responsible
> > for
> >> the rate centers where the number blocks were assigned, but
> that
> > seems
> >> to not always be the case when there are multiple ILEC-hosted
> > tandems
> >> in a LATA.
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Mike Hammett
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>
> >> Midwest Internet Exchange
> >> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >>
> >> -------------------------
> >>
> >> FROM: "Erik"
> >> TO: "Mike Hammett"
> >> CC: voiceops at voiceops.org
> >> SENT: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:25:40 PM
> >> SUBJECT: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.
> >>
> >> Most providers simply connect to the tandem at the ILEC. The
> end
> >> office transit termination and origination cost is SO LOW
> that
> it
> >> doesn't make since to have a switch or access point at
> the
> end
> > office.
> >> Since most things are ILEC if not all are VOIP everything is
> coming
> >> from a centralize switch point. Hopefully all the 1970's
> billing
> >> methods will disappear.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Mike Hammett
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Meaning if I thought were true? I had just assumed that
> Inteliquent
> >>> did have the connections to every tandem in the LATAs
> they
> serve,
> >>> given that (my thought) that you could only port numbers
> on
> the
> > same
> >>> tandem, so universal coverage would require connections
> to
> every
> >>> tandem. We're actually looking at someone like
> Inteliquent to
> > expand
> >>> our footprint.
> >>>
> >>> So I'm supposed to be connected to every tandem in my
> LATA? In my
> >>> LATA, there are only two (I believe), but some LATAs
> (like
> Chicago)
> >>> have several. I'm supposed to drag a DS1 (or use
> Inteliquent, etc.
> >>> if available) to connect to each one, even if I don't
> provide
> >>> service in the rate centers traditionally served by that
> tandem? It
> >>> seems like Comcast threw a dart at a dart board in
> choosing
> which
> >>> tandem to connect to vs. going with the one that everyone
> else in
> >>> that town uses.
> >>>
> >>> So then I could port a number from any rate center in my
> LATA (say
> >>> Savanna) and point it to my LRN, living off of a tandem
> switch that
> >>> the Savanna ILEC isn't connected to (from my outside
> world
> >>> perspective)? Is there even the LATA constraint? Given
> the
> porting
> >>> limitations I had experienced in the VoIP world, I
> assumed
> it was a
> >>> tandem-by-tandem basis.
> >>>
> >>> So the LERG shows which tandem I need to send traffic to
> if
> I want
> >>> to talk to them, but they could send their outbound calls
> to a
> >>> different tandem? My current customer complaint is for
> calls that
> >>> we're sending to Comcast, apparently homed off of the
> other tandem.
> >>>
> >>> If everyone is supposed to be on every tandem, then why
> can't the
> >>> tandem I'm on just accept the calls I'm sending
> to
> Comcast, since
> >>> Comcast should be there? Obviously me not being on the
> other tandem
> >>> would affect inbound traffic to me.
> >>>
> >>> Is there another service I should be paying Frontier for
> to
> get me
> >>> to the other tandem with some value-add service? I know
> CenturyLink
> >>> hops through almost every town going that way (former
> LightCore and
> >>> others before route). Frontier or CenturyLink may be able
> to get me
> >>> a DS1 to the other tandem if I need that.
> >>>
> >>> I'm aware that I could still be completely missing
> the
> mark.
> >>>
> >>> BTW: Thanks for TelcoData. I subscribed a long time ago,
> but
> > haven't
> >>> for many ages.
> >>>
> >>> -----
> >>> Mike Hammett
> >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >>> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>>
> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange
> >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------
> >>>
> >>> FROM: "Paul Timmins"
> >>> TO: "Mike Hammett"
> >>> CC: voiceops at voiceops.org
> >>> SENT: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:19:11 PM
> >>> SUBJECT: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.
> >>>
> >>> If that were true, you wouldn't be able to use
> inteliquent (et al)
> >>> as your access tandem. Everyone is supposed to be
> directly
> or
> >>> indirectly connected to every tandem in the LATA (which
> you
> can't
> >>> independently verify, as telcodata and the LERG both show
> >>> terminating tandem information to reach that end office,
> not what
> >>> tandems the end office is hooked to to terminate calls.
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 28, 2018 17:47, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I thought you had to be on the same tandem to port a
> number, but
> >>> with what our tandem operator (Frontier) is telling me,
> this isn't
> >>> the case.
> >>>
> >>> Comcast ported a number from us in town A. The LRN they
> pointed to
> >>> is based in town B (per TelcoData). The tandem generally
> used by
> >>> carriers in both towns is based in town B. Naturally, we
> send
> >>> traffic to that tandem.
> >>>
> >>> The operator of that tandem is telling us that the LRN is
> actually
> >>> homed off of a different tandem in our LATA (operated by
> >>> CenturyLink) in town C. Unfortunately, I can't
> corroborate this
> >>> information with TelcoData the only rate center I see off
> of that
> >>> tandem in TelcoData is an AT&T town next door.
> >>>
> >>> Where can I read up authoritatively on the porting
> requirements
> > that
> >>> would apply to this and related bits of info I should
> know?
> >>>
> >>> I'm checking on our LERG access as I know that has
> the
> > authoritative
> >>> information, but I don't have that access at the
> moment. Maybe
> > we're
> >>> not subscribed to it.
> >>>
> >>> Number NPA-NXX in town A:
> >>>
> >>
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex
> change=991
> > [1]
> >>>
> >>> LRN NPA-NXX in town B:
> >>>
> >>
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex
> change=901
> > [2]
> >>>
> >>> Tandem in town B:
> >>>
> >>
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILX
> A50T
> > [3]
> >>> Tandem in town C:
> >>>
> >>
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILX
> A50T
> > [4]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> -----
> >>> Mike Hammett
> >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >>> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>>
> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange
> >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> VoiceOps mailing list
> >>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> VoiceOps mailing list
> >> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> > _______________________________________________
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1]
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex
> change=991
> > [2]
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex
> change=901
> > [3]
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILX
> A50T
> > [4]
> >
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILX
> A50T
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> </p></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>
> VoiceOps mailing
> list<br>VoiceOps at voiceops.org<br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinf
> o/voiceops<br></div><br></div></div></div></div>
> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>
> </blockquote></body></html>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops