July 2023 - VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

SS7 Landscape
by voiceops＠ics-il.net Oct. 24, 2023

Oct. 24, 2023

We currently get our SS7 via TNS. I (maybe incorrectly) understand them to be a big dog in that space. I've had two major problems with them in six months. What are my alternatives? Are they less pleasant? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

11 31

Call term misrouting?
by nathana＠fsr.com July 26, 2023

July 26, 2023

Mike Johnston wrote: > On 2023-07-26 17:43, Paul Timmins via VoiceOps wrote: > > I wouldn't be surprised to see carriers dumping these calls via a GSM > > gateway, this is really common in europe with gray routes. It'd > > explain why you get weird cellular voicemail, if they sent the number > > to the cell phone wrong to actually dial out. > > I've heard of this! > In one instance, the call would come through every one in a dozen or so > attempts. And it would often have the wrong calling number. Generally > belonging to a cell provider. Audio was not great and there was > noticeable latency. The call would only go for a few minutes before > dropping. Going back to the "wrong voicemail system" thing, though...I could easily see a call being placed via a GSM gateway carrying the wrong CLID info (call being sourced from phone # owned by the cell carrier, rather than the original caller). But whenever we would hit these voicemail systems, they would clearly read back to me the number that I *dialed* (e.g., "2125551212 is not available"), demonstrating that -- IF this is a legit voicemail system -- the diversion/RDNIS info is being properly signalled to it. Having RDNIS pass through unmolested over wireless via a gateway seems 1) unlikely (how would that even work? is it possible for a wireless endpoint to signal that??), and 2) the sensation one gets is that the mobile carrier's OWN voicemail system has somehow mistakenly been sent the call, which still doesn't make sense. So your theory about it being a fake termination makes way more sense to me. -- Nathan

1 0

Call term misrouting?
by nathana＠fsr.com July 26, 2023

July 26, 2023

I just want to briefly point out that I was engaging in some hyperbolic metaphor with the "twelve rounds" bit, and it seems to have misfired. It wasn't literally 12, and apologies for (unintentionally) misleading anyone. I was attempting (poorly, apparently) to use a boxing analogy (and what I thought was a fairly commonly-understood idiom) merely to underline that the fight was long and drawn out & it took a lot of back and forth. It also involved 2 separate tickets with 2 of my direct providers, one a few months back, and the latest one was opened last Thursday and was only resolved yesterday after number of exchanges (that I didn't bother to actually count; heh) over the course of that near-week-long period. And now it's looking like we are going to need to open yet another ticket with a 3rd provider of ours... I was also more interested in exactly what is happening during the "routing via circuitous pathways" that would cause a call to be delivered to the wrong destination. I can understand crap call quality, long connection times, etc. all in an effort to save a buck. But sending the call to the wrong endpoint entirely?? Assuming it isn't someone doing something intentionally fraudulent, what *technical* explanation can there be for such a break-down occurring? -- Nathan -----Original Message----- From: David Frankel [mailto:dfrankel at zipdx.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 8:01 AM To: 'Mark R Lindsey'; Nathan Anderson Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Call term misrouting? Mark's reference to the RCC regs is pointing in the right direction. The problem stems from sketchy providers trying to save money routing via circuitous pathways, which often end up with the misbehaviors cited in this thread. Nathan's comments that he's been through TWELVE rounds of provider blacklisting shows what a mess this is. Recognizing the problem, the FCC as part of their RCC initiative several years ago put a "safe harbor" in place to incent providers to perform direct routing to rural locations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart -V/section-64.2107 Go to a reputable intermediate provider and tell them that you want a rate deck that conforms to this safe harbor, which dictates direct or one-hop routing. You will pay incrementally more for this rate deck, and you will get more than your money back in terms of time saved from all this trauma chasing completion issues. If you want a suggestion of where to start, I'd say try Inteliquent. David Frankel ZipDXR LLC St. George, UT USA -----Original Message----- From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Mark R Lindsey via VoiceOps Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 8:32 AM To: Nathan Anderson <nathana at fsr.com> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Call term misrouting? It would not only be a form of fraud, but sounds be a violation of the Rural Call Completion rules (specifically 47 CFR 64.2119(a)). I would recommend you make a complaint to the FCC and categorize them at Rural Call Completion issues. Provide as much info as you can on carrier names, dates and times of the calls. The FCC staff do contact carriers and intermediate providers to track down RCC problems. I worked with one rural provider in the US on an issue related to rural call completion, and our complaints were getting callbacks to help us troubleshoot from Comcast, Verizon and AT&T at different points in the troubleshooting. The FCC requires all the intermediate providers to retain records of call routing attempts in a readily-accessed format for six months. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-64.2103 There are minimum standards of quality for carriers related to the successful delivery and routing of calls. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-64.2119 (I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, and this is technical advice, not legal advice.) Mark R Lindsey | +1-229-316-0013 | mrl at ecg.co | Schedule a Meeting <https://ecg.co/lindsey/schedule> | Newsletter <https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/mark-lindsey-voice-7021614437413330944 /> > On Jul 26, 2023, at 09:28, Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote: > > ...by which I mean, we send a call to a term provider via SIP, who then *seems* to terminate the call to the wrong callee entirely. > > What the heck actually causes this? > > Whenever I have experienced it, it inevitably involves a rural carrier of some kind, one that likely charges a lot to accept traffic. Over the course of a few days, we just went through twelve rounds of having a wholesale term provider blacklist various carriers from their LCRs for calls headed to this particular exchange, before the problem stopped happening. "Is it working yet?" "Nope." "How about now?" "Still nope." And it's random and sporadic enough that I have to place a lot of test calls (as well as continue to field feedback from our end-users) before I can be sure that the problem is actually fixed. It's aggravating... > > It doesn't seem to be the final destination carrier that's screwing up the call routing after having received the call: I can call the same number over and over again through a "reputable" carrier, or via my personal cell (but I repeat myself), and get connected to the right destination every time. Based on my experiences, I highly doubt the misdirected calls are even getting as far as the CO's switch for that exchange. > > So I have to hypothesize that some sketch carrier getting is picked from an LCR table, one who just doesn't like sending the call to a rural carrier who either charges that much, or that they suspect is engaging in fraud. But...WHY *misroute* it? I'd rather you just reject the call if you don't want to carry it. > > The misrouted calls in this latest case more often than not seemed to > be hitting a foreign voicemail system that sounded an awful lot like > AT&T Mobility's default voicemail greeting. But we have definitely > had calls just end up ringing the absolute wrong phone...in one case a > few months back, I tried ringing the public library branch in this one > rural town, and ended up getting the answering machine for some random > business (...and also the call quality was *abysmal* on top of that). > (Never did manage to figure out where that business whose answering > machine I got was actually located. It was a generic-enough name for > a business in their industry, but what I can tell you is that there > was no business by that name in the rate centers covered by that rural > carrier. And also that my CDRs back up the fact that I did *not* > mis-dial that call.) > > About the only theory I can come up with that makes a lick of sense is that these cut-rate carriers in these LCRs decide to throw to a rando number if they get asked to term to a high-cost exchange, so that they can record a call completion and charge the caller for it anyway. Which would be a form of fraud itself, if that's actually happening. > > I suppose there could be a leg of the call that is being signalled non-digitally (so, not SS7, not SIP, ...), and something is getting either mis-transmitted or mis-interpreted. But if they were doing something like (e.g.) in-band DTMF over a crap connection to an old switch somewhere, I would expect dropped digits, and thus not enough to construct a viable & valid destination number out of. > > -- Nathan > > _______________________________________________ > 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

3 2

Call term misrouting?
by nathana＠fsr.com July 26, 2023

July 26, 2023

I suppose a GSM gateway is a remote possibility. But I don't see how that explains the voicemail system answering the call. If I place a call from my personal cell to some number, and for some reason my cell carrier fails to complete that call for me, that call is not then sent to my cell carrier's *own voicemail system*. Something would have to be really screwed up for that to happen. -- Nathan -----Original Message----- From: Paul Timmins [mailto:ptimmins at clearrate.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 3:44 PM To: Nathan Anderson Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Call term misrouting? I wouldn't be surprised to see carriers dumping these calls via a GSM gateway, this is really common in europe with gray routes. It'd explain why you get weird cellular voicemail, if they sent the number to the cell phone wrong to actually dial out. > On Jul 26, 2023, at 6:36 PM, Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote: > > I just want to briefly point out that I was engaging in some hyperbolic metaphor with the "twelve rounds" bit, and it seems to have misfired. It wasn't literally 12, and apologies for (unintentionally) misleading anyone. I was attempting (poorly, apparently) to use a boxing analogy (and what I thought was a fairly commonly-understood idiom) merely to underline that the fight was long and drawn out & it took a lot of back and forth. It also involved 2 separate tickets with 2 of my direct providers, one a few months back, and the latest one was opened last Thursday and was only resolved yesterday after number of exchanges (that I didn't bother to actually count; heh) over the course of that near-week-long period. And now it's looking like we are going to need to open yet another ticket with a 3rd provider of ours... > > I was also more interested in exactly what is happening during the "routing via circuitous pathways" that would cause a call to be delivered to the wrong destination. I can understand crap call quality, long connection times, etc. all in an effort to save a buck. But sending the call to the wrong endpoint entirely?? Assuming it isn't someone doing something intentionally fraudulent, what *technical* explanation can there be for such a break-down occurring? > > -- Nathan > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Frankel [mailto:dfrankel at zipdx.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 8:01 AM > To: 'Mark R Lindsey'; Nathan Anderson > Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org > Subject: RE: [VoiceOps] Call term misrouting? > > Mark's reference to the RCC regs is pointing in the right direction. > > The problem stems from sketchy providers trying to save money routing via > circuitous pathways, which often end up with the misbehaviors cited in this > thread. > > Nathan's comments that he's been through TWELVE rounds of provider > blacklisting shows what a mess this is. > > Recognizing the problem, the FCC as part of their RCC initiative several > years ago put a "safe harbor" in place to incent providers to perform direct > routing to rural locations: > https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart > -V/section-64.2107 > > Go to a reputable intermediate provider and tell them that you want a rate > deck that conforms to this safe harbor, which dictates direct or one-hop > routing. You will pay incrementally more for this rate deck, and you will > get more than your money back in terms of time saved from all this trauma > chasing completion issues. If you want a suggestion of where to start, I'd > say try Inteliquent. > > > David Frankel > ZipDXR LLC > St. George, UT USA > > -----Original Message----- > From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Mark R Lindsey > via VoiceOps > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 8:32 AM > To: Nathan Anderson <nathana at fsr.com> > Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Call term misrouting? > > It would not only be a form of fraud, but sounds be a violation of the Rural > Call Completion rules (specifically 47 CFR 64.2119(a)). I would recommend > you make a complaint to the FCC and categorize them at Rural Call Completion > issues. Provide as much info as you can on carrier names, dates and times of > the calls. > > The FCC staff do contact carriers and intermediate providers to track down > RCC problems. I worked with one rural provider in the US on an issue related > to rural call completion, and our complaints were getting callbacks to help > us troubleshoot from Comcast, Verizon and AT&T at different points in the > troubleshooting. > > The FCC requires all the intermediate providers to retain records of call > routing attempts in a readily-accessed format for six months. > https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-64.2103 > > There are minimum standards of quality for carriers related to the > successful delivery and routing of calls. > https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-64.2119 > > > (I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, and this is technical advice, not legal > advice.) Mark R Lindsey | +1-229-316-0013 | mrl at ecg.co | Schedule a Meeting > <https://ecg.co/lindsey/schedule> | Newsletter > <https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/mark-lindsey-voice-7021614437413330944 > /> > > >> On Jul 26, 2023, at 09:28, Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps > <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote: >> >> ...by which I mean, we send a call to a term provider via SIP, who then > *seems* to terminate the call to the wrong callee entirely. >> >> What the heck actually causes this? >> >> Whenever I have experienced it, it inevitably involves a rural carrier of > some kind, one that likely charges a lot to accept traffic. Over the course > of a few days, we just went through twelve rounds of having a wholesale term > provider blacklist various carriers from their LCRs for calls headed to this > particular exchange, before the problem stopped happening. "Is it working > yet?" "Nope." "How about now?" "Still nope." And it's random and > sporadic enough that I have to place a lot of test calls (as well as > continue to field feedback from our end-users) before I can be sure that the > problem is actually fixed. It's aggravating... >> >> It doesn't seem to be the final destination carrier that's screwing up the > call routing after having received the call: I can call the same number over > and over again through a "reputable" carrier, or via my personal cell (but I > repeat myself), and get connected to the right destination every time. > Based on my experiences, I highly doubt the misdirected calls are even > getting as far as the CO's switch for that exchange. >> >> So I have to hypothesize that some sketch carrier getting is picked from > an LCR table, one who just doesn't like sending the call to a rural carrier > who either charges that much, or that they suspect is engaging in fraud. > But...WHY *misroute* it? I'd rather you just reject the call if you don't > want to carry it. >> >> The misrouted calls in this latest case more often than not seemed to >> be hitting a foreign voicemail system that sounded an awful lot like >> AT&T Mobility's default voicemail greeting. But we have definitely >> had calls just end up ringing the absolute wrong phone...in one case a >> few months back, I tried ringing the public library branch in this one >> rural town, and ended up getting the answering machine for some random >> business (...and also the call quality was *abysmal* on top of that). >> (Never did manage to figure out where that business whose answering >> machine I got was actually located. It was a generic-enough name for >> a business in their industry, but what I can tell you is that there >> was no business by that name in the rate centers covered by that rural >> carrier. And also that my CDRs back up the fact that I did *not* >> mis-dial that call.) >> >> About the only theory I can come up with that makes a lick of sense is > that these cut-rate carriers in these LCRs decide to throw to a rando number > if they get asked to term to a high-cost exchange, so that they can record a > call completion and charge the caller for it anyway. Which would be a form > of fraud itself, if that's actually happening. >> >> I suppose there could be a leg of the call that is being signalled > non-digitally (so, not SS7, not SIP, ...), and something is getting either > mis-transmitted or mis-interpreted. But if they were doing something like > (e.g.) in-band DTMF over a crap connection to an old switch somewhere, I > would expect dropped digits, and thus not enough to construct a viable & > valid destination number out of. >> >> -- Nathan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

1 0

Call term misrouting?
by nathana＠fsr.com July 26, 2023

July 26, 2023

Mike Johnston wrote: > I serve a rural area. I do the technical "make it work" stuff. I'm > generally only involved in the business dealings insofar as determining > technical incompatibilities (draw 7 red lines, all perpendicular, some > with green ink and some with transparent). That said, please forgive > any errors in what I say, and feel free to correct me. This was all super interesting and helpful; thanks! > I try to find numbers that go to IVRs, fax numbers, automated airport > weather numbers, etc. Anything that doesn't involve bothering a human > over and over. It has to be with the same OCN though, and generally > needs to be in the same NPA-NXX too. Yes; correct. In this particular instance, a county library system that we service a lot of branches for was having trouble calling a particular branch that lies outside of our service area. I knew that branch's operating hours, and they have an answering machine, so I would run my tests while they were closed. > These are generally fake voicemails. Just a recording of some voicemail > intro, to make you think you hit a voicemail box. The call hasn't > actually been mis-routed. It hasn't been "routed" anywhere, other than > to an audio file. I suspected it was either this, or it was hitting a genuine voicemail system that was perhaps misconfigured and accepting calls for any RDNIS / voicemail boxes it received. Though I guess if I'd thought about it for 2 seconds, if it had actually been AT&T's voicemail system, then it would have told me that the destination mailbox in question had not yet been initialized / set up. > Are you sure it actually rang a line at some business? Or maybe it was, > again, just an audio file? Some wav file on a server at Bob's Shady > Long Distance Shack? [...] > I would argue it is fraud. But again, prove to me they are actually > "routing" to any number, and not some audio file. Fair point. I don't actually know. -- Nathan

1 0

Call term misrouting?
by nathana＠fsr.com July 26, 2023

July 26, 2023

...by which I mean, we send a call to a term provider via SIP, who then *seems* to terminate the call to the wrong callee entirely. What the heck actually causes this? Whenever I have experienced it, it inevitably involves a rural carrier of some kind, one that likely charges a lot to accept traffic. Over the course of a few days, we just went through twelve rounds of having a wholesale term provider blacklist various carriers from their LCRs for calls headed to this particular exchange, before the problem stopped happening. "Is it working yet?" "Nope." "How about now?" "Still nope." And it's random and sporadic enough that I have to place a lot of test calls (as well as continue to field feedback from our end-users) before I can be sure that the problem is actually fixed. It's aggravating... It doesn't seem to be the final destination carrier that's screwing up the call routing after having received the call: I can call the same number over and over again through a "reputable" carrier, or via my personal cell (but I repeat myself), and get connected to the right destination every time. Based on my experiences, I highly doubt the misdirected calls are even getting as far as the CO's switch for that exchange. So I have to hypothesize that some sketch carrier getting is picked from an LCR table, one who just doesn't like sending the call to a rural carrier who either charges that much, or that they suspect is engaging in fraud. But...WHY *misroute* it? I'd rather you just reject the call if you don't want to carry it. The misrouted calls in this latest case more often than not seemed to be hitting a foreign voicemail system that sounded an awful lot like AT&T Mobility's default voicemail greeting. But we have definitely had calls just end up ringing the absolute wrong phone...in one case a few months back, I tried ringing the public library branch in this one rural town, and ended up getting the answering machine for some random business (...and also the call quality was *abysmal* on top of that). (Never did manage to figure out where that business whose answering machine I got was actually located. It was a generic-enough name for a business in their industry, but what I can tell you is that there was no business by that name in the rate centers covered by that rural carrier. And also that my CDRs back up the fact that I did *not* mis-dial that call.) About the only theory I can come up with that makes a lick of sense is that these cut-rate carriers in these LCRs decide to throw to a rando number if they get asked to term to a high-cost exchange, so that they can record a call completion and charge the caller for it anyway. Which would be a form of fraud itself, if that's actually happening. I suppose there could be a leg of the call that is being signalled non-digitally (so, not SS7, not SIP, ...), and something is getting either mis-transmitted or mis-interpreted. But if they were doing something like (e.g.) in-band DTMF over a crap connection to an old switch somewhere, I would expect dropped digits, and thus not enough to construct a viable & valid destination number out of. -- Nathan

5 4

PSA - Hosting SHAKEN cert behind Cloudflare
by compuwizz＠gmail.com July 15, 2023

July 15, 2023

We were notified that some validators were unable to pull our cert which is hosted behind Cloudflare. I believe the fix is to create a WAF rule to match when the User Agent contains "Java/1.8.0" and then choose the Skip action. Please share if anyone has any better tips for WAF rules for this scenario. I was seeing Bandwidth, TransUnion, and Level3 getting blocked. TransUnion gave me the heads up and mentioned they saw it with other carriers lately also.

2 1

No-commit international calling
by ross＠tajvar.io July 14, 2023

July 14, 2023

Hi all, I have an asterisk PBX for personal/business use. I use Flowroute for both origination and termination. Recently I've started needing to make some international calls (specifically mostly to the UK, but also some other places in Europe and Australia). There've been a few numbers where completion is very hit-or-miss, and a few that seem not to work at all (in both cases I get a SIP 500 back from the carrier). I'm wondering if this is a carrier issue - maybe Flowroute just has low-quality routes to some destinations? I'd like to try other carriers, and ideally keep a second one as a fallback, but I'm not sure who's out there with no commit. Looks like voip.ms is one option. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Thanks, Ross

9 9

Historic Number Data (+1)
by calvine＠gmail.com July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

What are some recommended sources of number data, as it has changed over time? I only need from 2019 onwards, anything before that is less useful the older it is. Firstly the actual number data: Activate/Deactivate/Reactivate/Reassign NPA, NPA-NXX, Thousand Block, TN Mobile/Landline I presume everything but TN can be obtained from NANPA or National Pooling reports. I think neustar PortPS might have TN porting history, are there any lower-cost alternatives? Then the related data I'm looking for: Latitude & Longitude (Rate Center and Switch, for different reasons) Address data like City, State, Zip, or City, Census Division, Province/Territory, Postal Code (not specific TN addresses) Population I'm aware of telco-data and localcallingguide, but not if they have historical data.

4 4

Update on STIR/SHAKEN
by nathana＠fsr.com July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

Personally, I'm quite curious to know how the ITG would even be identifying these companies as being distinct from the wholesaler, at least without a traceback request for an actual violation, where the investigation (that the wholesaler would likely be not only cooperative with but actively involved in) eventually revealed that all of the violations were originating from one particular customer of theirs. But sans any violations to look into...how would they know? In particular, when asking these questions, what I specifically have in mind are wholesalers not like VI/Sangoma et al., but more like e.g. https://atheral.com/, which carries traffic for a bunch of smaller regional ISPs that want to offer VoIP but don't want any of the headaches associated with doing so. So most of them I presume literally own no infrastructure of their own...no softswitch, no SBC, no nothing. They might be 499 filers, but that's likely the extent of their direct regulatory involvement. I believe Daniel might be hanging around on this list, so perhaps he can shed some light on how they have been advised to approach this (whether they are signing all calls with their own SHAKEN cert/key, or whether they can host SHAKEN certs owned by their customers and sign the end-users of that customer's calls with that customer's own cert, or a mix of both). -- Nathan -----Original Message----- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Mary Lou Carey via VoiceOps Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 1:29 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Update on STIR/SHAKEN I spoke with my FCC contact today and was told to read the last order issued in March so his response wasn't crystal clear. He said the FCC is still in the process of deciding which types of companies can sign with a third-party vendor's token and which ones can't. I told him my concern is that the ITG is going to start blocking traffic in August and companies won't know that they aren't compliant because their wholesale provider told them they were fine. I specifically asked, "If the ITG decides a company should have had its own token, will you give them time to get one?" He said they have a process for handling these issues, but he didn't come out and say "Yes" so here's what I would suggest since the process can sometimes take longer than the 30 days they give you to comply. If you are using a third-party provider whose signing with their token. At least complete the preliminary steps to qualify for your own STIR/SHAKEN token. That way if they do come to you and tell you that you need to get it on a moment's notice, you won't be fighting the clock so much. The pre-requisites for filing with the STI-PA to become an approved carrier are: 1. Order your own OCN (aka company code from NECA) IPES is the correct type for all VOIP carriers 2. Have your 499 up to date and fees paid. If you've never filed a 499A yet, get your 499 filer ID and submit your first 499-A. (All carriers delivering long-distance traffic in the US should have already completed this step anyways). 3. Robocall Mitigation Plan filed. There are multiple companies helping carriers get their STIR/SHAKEN certificate, so it doesn't matter if you use my services or anyone else's. I just want to make sure everyone is aware of what they need to do to make sure their traffic doesn't get blocked because thats a lot harder to fix than getting a certificate/token is! MARY LOU CAREY BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-791-9969 Cell: 615-796-1111 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

4 3