[SIPForum-discussion] sip uri format with the +sign

[Nikos Leontsinis]

Manpreet,

If you read it in that way I can accept it. However, there is no sentence
in the rfc 3261 rendering this rule as mandatory. It can only be perceived
as a product of convention between international carriers.

/nikos

On 4 January 2012 22:22, Manpreet Singh <msingh at ibasis.net> wrote:

>  Nikos****
>
> ** **
>
> With no +, there is not always a good indication where the format has
> country code. The whole intention was to make interworking between ISUP and
> SIP clear from NOA perspective. Unless discussed on the international
> interconnection, + or no + confirms if the numbers contains country code or
> not. All international interconnections require a + beyond the national
> domain otherwise they are treated as National.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks  ****
>
> ** **
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Nikos Leontsinis [mailto:leontsinis at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:47 PM
> *To:* Manpreet Singh
>
> *Cc:* discussion at sipforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SIPForum-discussion] sip uri format with the +sign
> ****
>
>  ** **
>
> Hello Manpreet,****
>
> ** **
>
> What about the case where there is no (+) and the number is in the format
> (country code) (national code) which is ****
>
> the case for most if not all international voip what would the absence of
> the + indicate?****
>
> ** **
>
> AFAIK the nature of address is an old isup feature to faciliate routing by
>  creating 2 routing tables inside the legacy switch. I fail to see its
> relevance in the modern NGN switches.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> /nikos****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 4 January 2012 20:03, Manpreet Singh <msingh at ibasis.net> wrote:****
>
> Nikos****
>
>  ****
>
> This would be to put the Nature of address logic in the B number.  + would
> be international NOA and without + could be national or unknown and routing
> could be done differently. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Thnx ****
>
>  ****
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:
> discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Nikos Leontsinis
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:13 AM
> *Cc:* discussion at sipforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SIPForum-discussion] sip uri format with the +sign****
>
>  ****
>
> I see that there are many carriers having adopted the sip uri with the +
> in front****
>
> example:****
>
> sip:+1-212-555-1212:1234 at gateway.com;user=phone****
>
> This is not mandatory looking at the rfc 3261 is there any motivation
> behind this decision?****
>
>  ****
>
> /nikos****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Nikos Leontsinis
> GSM: +306974477561
> office:2103301193
> ICQ Number:  201-100-938
> msn: leontsinis at gmail.com
> skype: leontsinis2****
>



-- 
Nikos Leontsinis
GSM: +306974477561
office:2103301193
ICQ Number:  201-100-938
msn: leontsinis at gmail.com
skype: leontsinis2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120104/96b20a92/attachment-0002.html>