Contribution

TITLE: Comments to IP NNI Routing Document

SOURCE*: Editor: Gary Richenaker

______

ABSTRACT

These documents provide feedback and input to the IP NNI Routing document.

NOTICE

This is a draft document and thus, is dynamic in nature. It does not reflect a consensus of the ATIS-SIP Forum IP-NNI Task Force and it may be changed or modified. Neither ATIS nor the SIP Forum makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the sufficiency, accuracy or utility of the information or opinion contained or reflected in the material utilized. ATIS and the SIP Forum further expressly advise that any use of or reliance upon the material in question is at your risk and neither ATIS nor the SIP Forum shall be liable for any damage or injury, of whatever nature, incurred by any person arising out of any utilization of the material. It is possible that this material will at some future date be included in a copyrighted work by ATIS or the SIP Forum.

* CONTACT: Penn Pfautz; email: ; Tel: +1732-420-4962

From Edge:

Comments on IP Interconnection Profile and IP Interconnection Routing Report

  • IP Interconnection Profile
  • Appendix A – Response Codes
  • We would suggest the following be added:

Condition / Response Code / Example Action when Received
Number Ported Away / 410 Gone / Originating SP would now DIP the call for current LNP information and send the call to the LRN identified.
  • IP Interconnection Routing Report
  • Section 4.2
  • If a POI identifier, such as a URI, were added to the LERG in the same manner as the TDM switch is identified in LERG 6 for blocks and LERG 12 for LRN, it would allow originating Service Providers to route traffic in a method that works best for their company. This method would allow for the called SP’s to also address any concerns or routing specifics they might have. It should be noted that multiple POI’s can be listed for each block or LRN, in the same manner as end office and tandem are today.
  • An example of how an SP might use this method to address specific inbound routing requirements the SP can have multiple LRN’s each with a unique POI listed. If an SP has numbers within a block that require specific enhancements such as HD voice, the SP can port that number to the LRN with a POI that is built for those specifications. When the originating SP signals with the call to the block listed POI, the originating SP will receive a cause code of 410, signaling that a DIP is required due to LNP. Once the DIP is completed the SP will receive the current listed LRN and send the call to the appropriate POI.
  • One of the benefits to this routing method as we transition to all IP is that a DIP for LRN information would only take place when the primary OCN identifies the number as “Gone” with the use of cause code 410, eliminating the need to DIP calls that do not require a DIP.
  • Another benefit would be to lab work being done by an SP. The use of an LRN with a unique POI would allow the SP to set up lab testing in the live voice network in matters such as testing a new switch or feature and once accepted or validated they may simply update existing blocks to the new POI.

From LNPA Working Group:

Jim and the ATIS NNI Joint Task Force,

The LNPA Working Group has reviewed the ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Joint Task Force Draft Documents focusing in particular on the IP Interconnection Routing Report. In regard to that report, we make the following comments:

  • In our opinion, none of the documented alternatives affect service provider number porting processes (i.e., the LSR/FOC and WPR/WPRR processes). Therefore, we foresee no changes to those processes.
  • If an alternative is chosen that uses the NPAC as the ENUM registry, the industry will be required to standardize the format of the Voice URI field in the Subscription Version (SV) record.
  • If an alternative is chosen that uses a separate ENUM registry (i.e., not in the NPAC), then the NPAC feeds described for the ENUM solutions in the IP-NNI draft document are required.

The LNPA Working Group appreciates the ongoing efforts of the NNI Joint Task Force. We wish to stay involved as the Task Force moves forward in planning the IP transition. We stand ready to discuss impacts and interactions with the number porting processes and the NPAC.

On behalf of the LNPA Working Group,

Ron Steen

Senior - Network Support

AT&T Network Operations

(205) 988-6615

Paula Jordan Campagnoli

Senior Manager - Regulatory

Office and Wireless: 925-325-3325

Linda L. Peterman

Industry Relations Manager

EarthLink Business

E:

O: 616-988-7139

From CenturyLink

CenturyLink appreciates the opportunity we have had to participate in the IP NNI efforts leading up to this report. This report is a valuable first step in addressing the IP Routing for telecommunication. While CenturyLink has not yet finalized on our total plans in the migration to the all-IP network, we look to continue to work through the various approaches laid out in this document, with continuing industry involvement. The next steps for the IP NNI group should include working to narrow the range of transition approaches and minimize the industry data bases needed and/or the establishment a defined interface that provides flexibility to users that incorporates multiple database sources.