[SIPForum-discussion] LPN and SIP

Fri Jul 29 20:32:28 UTC 2005

See the attached screenshots.

They clearly show that even on the web portal, everything including how you
are identified uses numbers!

  _____  

From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Ringel, Rick
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:10 PM
To: An open list for discussion of SIP-related topics
Subject: RE: [SIPForum-discussion] LPN and SIP

Steve,

I don't have any first-hand experience with a residential VoIP providers, so
I may have some incorrect assumptions.

Would a service provider identify me based on the phone number from the
other network, or would I have a unique identity within the network?  I
assumed I would have a native address, and that a call that originates on
the IP network would not have to submit my PSTN phone number as an address.

On the other hand, phone numbers will never go away.  Phones don't have
keyboards, whether IP based or not.  So, it may be that people will choose
not to publish their native IP network address - it just complicates things,
for no apparent reason.   Routing by number will work in either network.

We are destined to be known by a number rather than a name, aren't we?  ;-)

-Rick

  _____  

From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Carr, Steve
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 1:22 PM
To: 'An open list for discussion of SIP-related topics'
Subject: RE: [SIPForum-discussion] LPN and SIP

Maybe I'm confused, but, is this really a valid real world example????.

As far as I know, Vonage and CallVantage and several others use NANP phone
numbers, and issue SIP (or MGCP) CPE to their customers (or they buy them at
Circuit City). The end user connects his black phone to the CPE and away
they go dialing phone numbers, not SIP URIs. In addition, incoming calls
from PSTN users are possible because the VoIP subscriber has a valid number
that can be dialled from any PSTN or PLMN device.

I'm guessing that Vonage does not get NANP numbers by getting its own Area
Code, but instead gets blocks of numbers from the LEC, and uses LNP to
redirect incoming calls to their gateways. They also offer virtual phone
numbers so that their customer can give out local numbers to friends and
family so that they can make local calls that are free from PSTN to VoIP
user.

Therefore, to port from one VoIP service provider to another involves
modifying the LNP database, and also ENUM could be used to provide an
equivalent for VoIP originated calls (to avoid LNP dip costs).

Steve.

  _____  

From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Jay Batson
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:50 PM
To: An open list for discussion of SIP-related topics
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] LPN and SIP

Rick -- 

I'm not speaking on behalf of a service provider, so this is merely an
informed opinion.

I'm going to re-state some of what you said as a base on which to add my
thoughts.

Let's use real-company examples.  Assume our user Joe is a Vonage customer,
and gets this SIP URI from Vonage:
   joe at vonage.com <mailto:joe at vonage.com> 

Then, let's presume Joe moves providers to, say, Verizon where his new URI
would be:
   joe at verizon.net <mailto:joe at verizon.net>   (for example)

It's rational to make the case that Vonage "owns" the LHS of the Vonage URI,
based on the precedent of how it works with email (as you said.)  To explain
further, assume I have an email address jay at earthlink.net
<mailto:jay at earthlink.net> .  In order for me to have Earthlink continue to
process my email (which might, or might not include forwarding to another
account, e.g. a Gmail account named jay at gmail.com <mailto:jay at gmail.com> ),
I must maintain my business relationship with Earthlink.  When I terminate
that relationship, the URI jay at earthlink.net <mailto:jay at earthlink.net>
"goes back" to Earthlink for possible use by somebody else with the name
Jay.  This would tend to suggest that a user must have a relationship with a
SIP service provider in order to continue to use the LHS of the URL they get
from that service provider.

As you said, however, SIP Redirect is a goodie we have in the SIP world that
might help us through the shortcomings of email.  Using the illustration
above, Vonage could choose to let you set a SIP "forwarding" option.  On
receipt on an INVITE to your account at Vonage, their SIP server could send
back a Redirect to your configured forwarding target (e.g. jay at verizon.net
<mailto:jay at verizon.net> ).

While this mechanism exists in the protocol design, the key is that Vonage
must choose to provide this, along with setting the terms on which they
might offer it.  E.g. they might want you to remain a full-paying Vonage
subscriber in order to get them to send a redirect.  (They could, of course,
also just invent an offering that costs a mere couple of bucks a year that
will *only* sends a redirect for any INVITE received at Joe's "old"
address.)

The way around this might be to take this last bit one step farther.  If
there were a service provider who offered a global "Redirect service," we
might have a way out.  Presume this service can provide you a "SIP URI for
life," that you then give to people as "your" SIP URI.  All your INVITEs go
here, but this service provider exists solely to issue a Redirect to your
"actual" (configured) SIP service provider of the moment.  (Note that this
clever provider probably still "owns" the LHS of the URI-for-life that you
get from them; it's just that they have a service that supplies
"portability" to providers that actually set up calls.)  Voila - I get the
same *effect* that "URI portability" would provide.

The counter precedent, of course, is the PSTN LNP experience, where the
consumer has some ownership of their number.  Which is what you were looking
for, I suspect.  Tough to say whether the email experience, or the PSTN LNP
experience is the better precedent.  But at the moment, the email experience
rules probably prevail.  And IMHO, I like it this way, since it provides for
more business opportunities.

But SIP doesn't necessarily dictate these rules; the Redirect mechanism
would seem to enable the movement of users, and that's all the protocol
needs to do.  From there, it's up to clever businesses to figure out how to
meet the desires of users.

Again, these are merely my humble thoughts.
-jb

-------
Jay Batson
batsonjay at sipforum.org <mailto:batsonjay at sipforum.org> 
+1-978-824-0111

On Jul 27, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Ringel, Rick wrote:

Hello group, 

I'm doing homework relating to Interconnect issues, and looking at user
mobility.   I have a question regarding mobility between service providers.

On the PSTN, number portability is a big issue, and thru regulatory
activity, this is being addressed in the circuit network.

In a SIP network, the issue takes on a different nature.  Clearly, as an
endpoint behind an IP-PBX, the user's identity is owned by the domain owner.
If Joe leaves Acme, he has to leave his joe at acme.com <mailto:joe at acme.com>
identity behind.  No problems here. 

However, in residential services, a user wants to create and publish an
identity that they own, independent of any particular service provider.   If
Joe publishes his address as joe at provider.net <mailto:joe at provider.net> ,
then moves his service to joe at competitor.net <mailto:joe at competitor.net> ,
by LNP thinking, either the owner of provider.net would have to redirect
Joe's calls to competitor.net, or the full address 'joe at provider.net
<mailto:joe at provider.net> ' would undergo a translation (DNS?) prior to
delivery at provider.net's service point.  Alternatively, Joe could obtain
his own domain name and point a DNS record to his service provider, but that
doesn't seem scalable.  I haven't found a solution that appears
satisfactory.

In my view, the service provider and the domain name should not be equated.
The same issue exists for e-mail services, but nobody expects their e-mail
account to be portable (yet).  I think it is probable that expectations for
IP phone service will be different, and that eventually, SIP URI portability
will become an issue.  

Does anybody know of any IETF tasks, public documents, or discussions on
this topic?  I've found lots of info on LPN relating to TEL: URIs, but I
have yet to see anything that addresses the problem when users are addressed
by a <username>@<domain> format. 

-Rick Ringel 

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
discussion at sipforum.org <mailto:discussion at sipforum.org> 
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
<http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20050729/647d51b0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Presentation1.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 217088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20050729/647d51b0/attachment-0001.ppt>