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

Nikos Leontsinis leontsinis at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 09:31:39 UTC 2012


Manpreet & Aniella,

Thank you very much for your explanation.
It was very hepful. I had some disagreements behind this endorsement
without getting any satisfactory justification from the other side but now
it makes perfect sense.

/nikos

On 5 January 2012 00:16, Aniella Juverdeanu <Aniella.Juverdeanu at telus.com>wrote:

> It is if you are using IP peering  - prefix is not used for calling
> nationally or internationally (just CC). ****
>
>  SIP-ISUP-SIP mapping – RFC 3398 – E.164 format.****
>
> ** **
>
> The E.164 format allows the SIP node to classify the called party as
> international or national when comparing the CC (country code) with the
> local configured one. For example in your number  +1.. the 1 after the +
>  is North America CC. If the SIP node has configured its CC as 1, it will
> know that the called party is a national number. If the called party was
> for example +44…, then the SIP node cannot match with its local CC
> therefore the called party is international and can route the call
> accordingly.****
>
> ** **
>
> Aniella ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:
> discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Nikos Leontsinis
> *Sent:* December 31, 2011 8:13 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120105/d6a496f5/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the discussion mailing list