- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Looking for a AT&T u-verse context
by zavoid＠gmail.com Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Hi all I?m looking for a off-list high level contact at U-verse. They are currently rolling out some new firmware affecting thousands of our customers from provisioning. Thanks

1 0

SIPNOC 2018 - ICYMI
by slocoach＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

With the talk about SHAKEN on the list lately, thought this might be useful info. <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sipnoc.…> *Canadian Radio-Television and **Telecomm**unications Commission (CRTC) Chairman and CEO Ian Scott, and Current and Former FCC Chief Technology Officers Dr. Eric Burger and SIP Pioneer Dr. Henning Schulzrinne to Keynote at SIPNOC 2018!* *Extraordinary Lineup of Keynote Speakers to Take the Podium at SIPNOC 2018, the 8th Annual SIP Network Operators Conference, December 4-6, 2018 * *Also, New Discounted Government/Military Registration Passes now Available! (see below for details.)* The SIP Forum <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sipfor…> recently announced an extraordinary lineup of keynote speakers at the association's annual 2018 SIP Network Operators Conference (*SIPNOC 2018*) that includes Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrtc.gc.ca…> (CRTC) Chairman and CEO Ian Scott, current United States Federal Communications Commission Chief Technology Officer Dr. Eric Burger, and former FCC CTO Dr. Henning Schulzrinne. CRTC Chairman and CEO Ian Scott has over 25 years of policy and regulatory experience in broadcasting and telecommunications both in the public and private sectors. After working at the Competition Bureau, he joined the CRTC from 1990 to 1994, where he collaborated on the development of a framework for long-distance telephone service competition in Canada. Between 2007 and 2008, as part of the Executive Interchange Program, he was Senior Policy Advisor to the Chairman at the CRTC. Before rejoining the CRTC in 2017, Mr Scott held various executive positions in the communications industry, including at Telesat Canada, Telus and Call-Net Enterprises, one of the first companies to offer competition in the Canadian long-distance market. He also provided leadership on broadcasting policy and regulatory issues as an executive at the Canadian Cable Television Association. The United States Federal Communications Commission's Chief Technology Officer Dr. Eric Burger serves as an advisor to the Chairman and as the senior technology expert in the agency. * DIAMOND SPONSOR* [image: Image] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fribboncomm…> * PLATINUM SPONSOR * [image: Image] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.home.n…> * GOLD SPONSORS * [image: Image] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fecg.co%2F&d…> [image: Image] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.secure…> [image: Image] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telcob…> Prior to joining the Commission, Dr. Burger served as director of the Security and Software Engineering Research Center in Washington, DC. The center helps propose solutions to network problems like Robocalling, rural call completion, accessibility of communications for Americans with hearing and speech impairments, reducing the cost of deploying and operating communications networks, and ensuring communication network security and stability. He holds patents in telecommunications and is an expert in standards for telecommunications, network, and Internet technologies. Dr. Burger has also held senior engineering and technology positions in various telecommunications companies and served as a technology consultant to others. He is also the Former Chairman of the SIP Forum, and he has taught computer science at Georgetown University, George Mason University, and The George Washington University. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Illinois Institute of Technology, an MBA from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, and bachelor?s degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Serving as CTO and in various other roles at the FCC from 2010 to 2017, Dr. Schulzrinne guided the organization's work on technology and engineering issues, together with the FCC?s Office of Engineering and Technology. Dr. Schulzrinne holds the Julian Clarence Levi Chair of Mathematical Methods and Computer Science at the Fu Foundation School of Engineering at Columbia University. Over the course of his career, he has published more than 250 journal and conference papers and more than 70 Internet Requests for Comment (RFCs) ? working to shape the key protocols for enabling voice-over-IP (VoIP) and other multimedia applications, including the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) which have become Internet Standards. His research interests include Internet multimedia systems, applied network engineering, wireless networks, security, communication policy, and performance evaluation. *About SIPNOC 2018* *The Eighth Annual SIPNOC 2018*, being held at the Hyatt Regency Dulles Hotel in Herndon, VA, December 4 -6, 2018, is a unique three-day educational conference focusing on the challenges and opportunities related to the reliable and successful deployment and operation of SIP-based services. The *SIPNOC 2018* agenda will feature special presentations, tutorials, panel discussions and workshops covering key topics related to SIP-based services, applications, and infrastructure. Attendees at *SIPNOC 2018* will include engineers and network architects from telecommunications providers, major backbone operators, interconnect and wholesale solution providers, ISPs, cable operators, wireless network operators as well as large enterprises deploying major SIP initiatives. As part of *SIPNOC 2018*, the SIP Forum will host a special Robocall Summit to be held on Tuesday, December 4th, 2018, focused on Robocall and Caller ID Spoofing elimination and mitigation and specifically developed for industry stakeholders in that ecosystem, including service providers seeking to deploy new solutions, governmental regulators and agencies, equipment manufacturers, enterprise and government agency contact centers, application providers and data analytics firms. *SIPNOC 2018 Call for Presentations General Info* - To view the official call for presentations, which includes instructions on submitting material, key dates of interest, and specific SIPNOC policies, please visit https://www.sipforum.org/news-events/sipnoc-2018-overview/sipnoc-2018-call-… <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sipfor…>. To submit, visit https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sipnoc2018 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.easych…> . *SIPNOC 2018 Registration* *Regular All-Access Conference Pass:* The regular "All-Access" SIPNOC 2018 conference registration fee is $1295 and includes access to the Robocall Summit, followed by two days of conference proceedings. This "all-inclusive" fee also includes breakfasts, lunches and break refreshments and snacks, and special networking receptions the first and second nights of the event! *Full Member All-Access Pass:* Individuals from SIP Forum Full Member companies save more ($200 to be exact) on an early-bird All-Access Pass! Send an email to sipnocinfo at sipforum.org to request the Full Member discount code. *NEW! Gov't/Military Employee All-Access Pass:* Individuals who work for government agencies or the military are entitled to a special savings of $445 on the All-Access Pass (for a total fee of $850). Please send an email to sipnocinfo at sipforum.org to request the exclusive discount code. *Conference Sessions-Only Pass*: Aren't interested in the Robocall Summit but want to attend the General Sessions part of the conference? We have you covered! Register by selecting the "Conference Sessions Only" option. The regular "Conference Sessions Only" Pass is $1095 for two days of conference proceedings, meals and breaks, and the Beer and Gear Networking Dinner reception. *NEW! Gov't/Military Employee Conference Sessions-Only Pass:* Individuals who work for government agencies or the military are entitled to a special savings of $345 on the Conference Sessions-Only Pass (for a total fee of $750). Please send an email to sipnocinfo at sipforum.org to request the exclusive discount code. *Robocall Summit-Only Pass*: Just want to attend the Robocall Summit? No problem! Simply select this registration type, with an associated fee of $595. *Register *at https://www.regonline.com/sipnoc2018 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.regonl…>. *SIPNOC 2018 General Event Information* - For more information about *SIPNOC 2018*, please visit www.sipnoc.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sipnoc.…> or send an email to sipnocinfo at sipforum.org. *SIPNOC 2018 Sponsorship Information* - *Learn more about SIPNOC 2018 Sponsorship Opportunities by downloading the SIPNOC 2018 Sponsorship Brochure! <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sipfor…>* For additional information about corporate sponsorship opportunities at *SIPNOC 2018*, please contact Marc Robins, SIP Forum President and Managing Director, at 203-829-6307 or marc.robins "at" sipforum.org. *For more information, please visit:* * www.sipnoc.org <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sipnoc.…> or email sipnocinfo at sipforum.org*

1 0

Question about billing on SIP trunks
by pdcraw27＠gmail.com Sept. 24, 2018

Sept. 24, 2018

Hello voice-ops: Enterprise admin here. We just converted from ISDN to SIP (and changed providers) and we're seeing some undesirable billing behavior. I'm hoping I can get some objective feedback from different providers. If a call comes into our system, and we forward it off-net using the SIP trunks (using either "standard" call forwarding or a call forking/paralleling feature like Avaya's EC500 or Cisco's Single Number Reach), we send the call with the SIP FROM header of the original caller (which is desirable to preserve callerID). We also include a Diversion Header with one of our phone numbers (the original destination of the call). We're being billed based on the *original* calling number, which sometimes results in long distance charges, even if this leg of the call is local to us. This is particularly onerous if the inbound call is international! So, the question is- what *should* we be billed on: FROM or DIVERSION. At one point, the provider indicated that P-Charge-Info was supported, but now backing away from that. Do we have any recourse (technical or otherwise)? Thanks.

7 9

California Teleconnect Fund?
by ryan＠finnesey.com Sept. 9, 2018

Sept. 9, 2018

I was wonder is any other members are leveraging California Teleconnect Fund? Do other States have similar programs?

1 0

Voice Version of PeeringDB
by voiceops＠ics-il.net Sept. 7, 2018

Sept. 7, 2018

Is there something like PeeringDB for the voice world where I can get appropriate NOC contacts, see where we can peer, etc.? Mostly the contact information. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

2 5

Current state of the LCR art
by dave＠socket.net Sept. 6, 2018

Sept. 6, 2018

All, I?m interested in learning about current best practices regarding LCR in the CLEC context (~2M minutes / month of LD traffic). What software/vendors are you using (or avoiding)? What are the non-obvious pros and cons? How automated is your system / how much labor do you put in? What percentage are you saving over one provider with a good rate deck when all costs are considered? Any insights are appreciated. I?m cross-posting this on the FISPA CLEC list, so I apologize if I hit you twice. Thanks, Dave Sill Manager of Business Intelligence and Automation Socket Telecom

4 4

LNP, tandems, etc.
by Adam.Vocks＠cticomputers.com Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

Hi Mike, if you have money to throw at the problem, I think I'd just hire Mary to track down and fix the problem for you. She's obviously knowledgeable, probably has enough contacts and is now familiar with your problem. Adam -----Original Message----- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 7:17 AM To: paul at timmins.net Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. 1) How do I find an appropriate contact to ask? 2) From what Mary has said, Comcast is doing it wrong in my area. I suppose it's useful to know how something is SUPPOSED to be done and acknowledge that it very well could be very different in production. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: paul at timmins.net To: voiceops at ics-il.net, voiceops at voiceops.org, marylou at backuptelecom.com Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org, marylou at backuptelecom.com Sent: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:04:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. <div dir="auto">The block owner often has a connection to the ILEC tandem for their block in that range, but that's not always necessary (I don't have any ilec FGD groups in the Chicago LATA, so it's not universally necessary).<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The only way to know for certain is to check the LERG or just ask the carrier, which is what I usually do because I don't like giving money to iconnectiv, since they tend to like to send me legally cartoonish Cease and Descists every few years for the last decade.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 29, 2018 21:49, Mike Hammett <voiceops at ics-il.net> wrote:<br><blockquote><html><head><style>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000">So then in my situation:  https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815& amp;exchange=901<br><br><br>Comcast has 815-901 as well as 815-901-0. Verizon Wireless has 1k-8k. 9k I guess would be either not provisioned or default back to Comcast because they have the 10k block. Because they have the parent 10k block, are they then required to have a connection to the tandem I'm on anyway? The 1k block I now understand could be elsewhere, but the 10k?<br><br>Interesting that AT&T U-Verse voice isn't on legacy AT&T infrastructure.<br><br><div><span></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br><br><br>Midwest Internet Exchange<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<br><br><span></span><br></div><br> <hr id="zwchr"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:n one;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>paul at timmins.net<br><b>To: </b>voiceops at ics-il.net, voiceops at voiceops.org, marylou at backuptelecom.com<br><b>Cc: </b>voiceops at voiceops.org, marylou at backuptelecom.com<br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, August 29, 2018 7:08:15 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br><br><div dir="auto">Thousands blocks are basically just a fancy LNP operation. Your tandem homing has to follow 10k blocks, and the 1k blocks are basically mass ported to your LRN. Even if the numbers are usually homed a certain way because they are in a ratecenter, they won't be in this case because they are ported numbers and supposed to be routed to your LRN. Example would be the Detroit LATA where there are about 6 or so AT&T and other tandems. I'm homed off WBFDMIMN20T. The local carrier has local/local toll trunks to me all over the place, but all intercarrier calls and out of area calls other than local traffic from AT&T LEC comes through my LRN 248-574-7678 off WBFDMIMN20T. This saves me from having to create FGD trunking ports to all the other tandems in the region, only the barely used local/intra trunking from AT&T ILEC, who has moved most customers to their uverse VoIP affilia te here, and those don't use the local/intra trunks either.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It lowers my capex and opex having potentially over provisioned/underutilized trunking all over the place, saves numbers and decreases the need for splits and overlays, and even saves at&t money. Only people who lose out are ribbon and metaswitch (and whoever supports at&ts 5ESS and EWSD deployments) on licensing and support costs for unneeded channels.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 29, 2018 19:51, Mike Hammett <voiceops at ics-il.net> wrote:<br><blockquote><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">"</span></font><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">they give you market entry without the technic al need to establish extra homing arrangements that aren't beneficial to you."</span><div><br></div><div>Could you elaborate on that?<br><br><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><span></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br><br><br>Midwest Internet Exchange<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<br><br><span></span><br></div><br> <hr id="zwchr" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none;"><b>From: </b>paul at timmins.net<br><b>To: </b>marylou at backuptelecom.com, ptimmins at clearrate.com, voiceops at voiceops.org<br><b>Cc: </b>voiceops at voiceops.org, ptimmins at clearrate.com<br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, August 29, 2018 6:05:39 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc.<br><br><div dir="auto">I've had some i nteresti ng arguments with other carriers regarding their obligation to connect to us. Oh, you aren't connected where I'm homed? Go order connectivity then.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">They have a little more power to make demands when you have more than 24 standing calls to them, but by and large with these stubborn providers we never do, and when they have complained i've given them a location they can install 1 way trunks to me at (as I have no desire to terminate traffic to them directly), and they always balk and find some other way of dealing with it because it was all well and good until it was their money they were spending instead of mine. The trick ends up being to never do 10k blocks when you don't have to. Thousands blocks aren't just great for number consolidation, they give you market entry without the technical need to establish extra homing arrangements that aren't beneficial to you. Sure sometimes you're the guy who has to own the 10k block, bu<blockquote><p>That's true if the ILEC has an agreement with the tandem provider. There are some little ILECs that have their own tandem and refuse to use the big ILEC tandem provider! You have to look at the routing of the ILEC switch in the LERG to figure that out. Mary Lou Carey BackUP Telecom Consulting Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary) Cell: 615-796-1111 On 2018-08-29 11:38 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > You don't actually have to establish connectivity to all ILECs in an > area, even if you are porting out numbers from their ratecenters. The > ILECs already have to have a way to reach any other tandem in the LATA > so as long as you have an LRN homed on A tandem in the area, and port > your numbers to that, you're good to go. > > The ILECs don't LIKE it, but if we cared what they truly liked we'd > all just leave the market. > > On Aug 29, 2018 12:33, BackUP Telecom Consulting > wrote: > > When there are multiple ILECs in a LATA like in LA - LATA 730, you > would > set up an interconnection point with each ILEC. So you'd have one for > the AT&T areas and one for the old Verizon areas. When you have trunks > > to both carriers in the LATA, you can use your own network to switch > traffic from the one LATA to the other LATA, but you can't deliver it > to > the ILEC and expect them to hand it off to the other ILEC. It would > work > the same with the third party providers.......as long as they have a > connection in both ILEC areas, then they can use their own network to > deliver the traffic from the one ILEC area to the other ILEC area. > > Mary Lou Carey > > BackUP Telecom Consulting > > Office: 615-771-7868 (temporary) > > Cell: 615-796-1111 > > On 2018-08-28 08:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> I thought everyone connected to the ILEC-hosted tandem responsible > for >> the rate centers where the number blocks were assigned, but that > seems >> to not always be the case when there are multiple ILEC-hosted > tandems >> in a LATA. >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> ------------------------- >> >> FROM: "Erik" >> TO: "Mike Hammett" >> CC: voiceops at voiceops.org >> SENT: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:25:40 PM >> SUBJECT: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. >> >> Most providers simply connect to the tandem at the ILEC. The end >> office transit termination and origination cost is SO LOW that it >> doesn't make since to have a switch or access point at the end > office. >> Since most things are ILEC if not all are VOIP everything is coming >> from a centralize switch point. Hopefully all the 1970's billing >> methods will disappear. >> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Mike Hammett >> wrote: >> >>> Meaning if I thought were true? I had just assumed that Inteliquent >>> did have the connections to every tandem in the LATAs they serve, >>> given that (my thought) that you could only port numbers on the > same >>> tandem, so universal coverage would require connections to every >>> tandem. We're actually looking at someone like Inteliquent to > expand >>> our footprint. >>> >>> So I'm supposed to be connected to every tandem in my LATA? In my >>> LATA, there are only two (I believe), but some LATAs (like Chicago) >>> have several. I'm supposed to drag a DS1 (or use Inteliquent, etc. >>> if available) to connect to each one, even if I don't provide >>> service in the rate centers traditionally served by that tandem? It >>> seems like Comcast threw a dart at a dart board in choosing which >>> tandem to connect to vs. going with the one that everyone else in >>> that town uses. >>> >>> So then I could port a number from any rate center in my LATA (say >>> Savanna) and point it to my LRN, living off of a tandem switch that >>> the Savanna ILEC isn't connected to (from my outside world >>> perspective)? Is there even the LATA constraint? Given the porting >>> limitations I had experienced in the VoIP world, I assumed it was a >>> tandem-by-tandem basis. >>> >>> So the LERG shows which tandem I need to send traffic to if I want >>> to talk to them, but they could send their outbound calls to a >>> different tandem? My current customer complaint is for calls that >>> we're sending to Comcast, apparently homed off of the other tandem. >>> >>> If everyone is supposed to be on every tandem, then why can't the >>> tandem I'm on just accept the calls I'm sending to Comcast, since >>> Comcast should be there? Obviously me not being on the other tandem >>> would affect inbound traffic to me. >>> >>> Is there another service I should be paying Frontier for to get me >>> to the other tandem with some value-add service? I know CenturyLink >>> hops through almost every town going that way (former LightCore and >>> others before route). Frontier or CenturyLink may be able to get me >>> a DS1 to the other tandem if I need that. >>> >>> I'm aware that I could still be completely missing the mark. >>> >>> BTW: Thanks for TelcoData. I subscribed a long time ago, but > haven't >>> for many ages. >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> >>> FROM: "Paul Timmins" >>> TO: "Mike Hammett" >>> CC: voiceops at voiceops.org >>> SENT: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:19:11 PM >>> SUBJECT: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. >>> >>> If that were true, you wouldn't be able to use inteliquent (et al) >>> as your access tandem. Everyone is supposed to be directly or >>> indirectly connected to every tandem in the LATA (which you can't >>> independently verify, as telcodata and the LERG both show >>> terminating tandem information to reach that end office, not what >>> tandems the end office is hooked to to terminate calls. >>> >>> On Aug 28, 2018 17:47, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>> I thought you had to be on the same tandem to port a number, but >>> with what our tandem operator (Frontier) is telling me, this isn't >>> the case. >>> >>> Comcast ported a number from us in town A. The LRN they pointed to >>> is based in town B (per TelcoData). The tandem generally used by >>> carriers in both towns is based in town B. Naturally, we send >>> traffic to that tandem. >>> >>> The operator of that tandem is telling us that the LRN is actually >>> homed off of a different tandem in our LATA (operated by >>> CenturyLink) in town C. Unfortunately, I can't corroborate this >>> information with TelcoData the only rate center I see off of that >>> tandem in TelcoData is an AT&T town next door. >>> >>> Where can I read up authoritatively on the porting requirements > that >>> would apply to this and related bits of info I should know? >>> >>> I'm checking on our LERG access as I know that has the > authoritative >>> information, but I don't have that access at the moment. Maybe > we're >>> not subscribed to it. >>> >>> Number NPA-NXX in town A: >>> >> > https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex change=991 > [1] >>> >>> LRN NPA-NXX in town B: >>> >> > https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex change=901 > [2] >>> >>> Tandem in town B: >>> >> > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILX A50T > [3] >>> Tandem in town C: >>> >> > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILX A50T > [4] >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex change=991 > [2] > https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&ex change=901 > [3] > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILX A50T > [4] > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILX A50T _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops </p></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br> VoiceOps mailing list<br>VoiceOps at voiceops.org<br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinf o/voiceops<br></div><br></div></div></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html> </blockquote></body></html> _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

4 4

LNP, tandems, etc.
by paul＠timmins.net Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20180829/5d30796e/at…>

3 2

LNP, tandems, etc.
by paul＠timmins.net Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20180829/64c184d7/at…>

2 1

T-Mobile A2P issue
by compuwizz＠gmail.com Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

I have a client with a problem receiving A2P messages. I suspect it is a routing problem in Syniverse or SAP. If anyone can check the A2P routing for a specific number for me from any of those 3 companies, I?d be grateful. Thanks, Jared

1 0