- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

LNP, tandems, etc.
by paul＠timmins.net Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20180829/480e5984/at…>

2 1

LNP, tandems, etc.
by voiceops＠ics-il.net Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Timmins" <ptimmins at clearrate.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <voiceops at ics-il.net> 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 <voiceops at ics-il.net> 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&exchange=… LRN NPA-NXX in town B: https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&exchange=… Tandem in town B: https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILXA50T Tandem in town C: https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILXA50T Thanks. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

4 8

LNP, tandems, etc.
by marylou＠backuptelecom.com Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

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 > <marylou at backuptelecom.com> 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" <erik at eespro.com> >> TO: "Mike Hammett" <voiceops at ics-il.net> >> 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 <voiceops at ics-il.net> >> 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" <ptimmins at clearrate.com> >>> TO: "Mike Hammett" <voiceops at ics-il.net> >>> 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 <voiceops at ics-il.net> 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&exchange=… > [1] >>> >>> LRN NPA-NXX in town B: >>> >> > https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&exchange=… > [2] >>> >>> Tandem in town B: >>> >> > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILXA50T > [3] >>> Tandem in town C: >>> >> > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILXA50T > [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&excha… > [2] > https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&excha… > [3] > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILXA50T > [4] > https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILXA50T

1 0

LNP, tandems, etc.
by voiceops＠ics-il.net Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

Are your LRNs homed off of the tandem switch traditionally responsible for the rate center in which the NPA-NXX your LRN is in? IE: in my example picture, is your version of 815-901-0976 going to DKLBILXA50T or DIXNILXA50T? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Timmins" <ptimmins at clearrate.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <voiceops at ics-il.net> Cc: "Matthew S. Crocker" <matthew at corp.crocker.com>, voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:40:40 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. For the same reason the ILEC gets to choose theirs. We're all independent networks and nobody is subordinate to anyone. I'm a big proponent of bypassing the ILEC at any opportunity, or using things like indirect interconnection to avoid needlessly purchasing transport hither and yon based on what some ILEC thought was a good idea in the 70s or 80s. It takes a while to realize you can actually tell the ILEC what to do, but you can and it's kinda neat. I have one LRN per LATA and it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way. Call rating is done based on the original dialed number and call routing is done off of the LRN. On Aug 28, 2018 23:12, Mike Hammett <voiceops at ics-il.net> wrote: Okay. I'll take that as my action item. On to the understanding... I don't understand how someone can aribrarily choose which tandem an LRN hangs off of. Why aren't they forced to keep an LRN attached to whatever tandem handles a given incumbent rate center? In my situation, 815-901 is in DeKalb. DeKalb's tandem is... DeKalb. How can Comcast decide to throw it onto Dixon's tandem? I wouldn't have this confusion if Comcast's LRN in Dixon was from an NPA-NXX assigned to Dixon. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Matthew Crocker" <matthew at corp.crocker.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <voiceops at ics-il.net> Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 8:53:27 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. Mike You either need to connect to the other tandem or pay another carrier to get you there. It is the responsibility of the originating carrier to get the call to the terminating carriers switch. Depending on the call volume you should probably just route through your LD carrier On Aug 28, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Mike Hammett < voiceops at ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> I drew a picture, hoping it would clear things up a bit. Through my switch, we're trying to call a number in a block assigned to Sycamore, with an LRN in a DeKalb number block, but the common tandem operator is telling me that the LRN actually lives on a different tandem. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Mike Hammett" < voiceops at ics-il.net > To: voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:46:52 PM Subject: [VoiceOps] LNP, tandems, etc. 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&exchange=… LRN NPA-NXX in town B: https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail?npa=815&exchange=… Tandem in town B: https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DKLBILXA50T Tandem in town C: https://www.telcodata.us/search-switches-by-tandem-clli?cllicode=DIXNILXA50T 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 <blockquote> <LATA 364 Comcast LRN.png> </blockquote> <blockquote> _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops </blockquote> </blockquote>

1 0

LNP, tandems, etc.
by paul＠timmins.net Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20180828/10f9bcad/at…>

1 0

LNP, tandems, etc.
by paul＠timmins.net Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20180828/fb098a8b/at…>

3 3

Fw: Shortcode to Ring Phone Number
by itg205＠yahoo.com Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

Hello, Does anyone know of a service that allows you to dial ashortcode and have it ring a number? For example if you dial #LAW it willconnect to that company?s office number? I see other people doing it, but notsure how can we accomplish this? Thanks, Jamie

1 0

HD Voice / Wideband audio?
by ryan＠finnesey.com Aug. 15, 2018

Aug. 15, 2018

I know this topic has come up a few times on the list before but now I can't seem to find the discussion(s) now. Is it mostly the wireless carriers that support HD Voice / Wideband audio?

5 5

Phone auth for incoming calls?
by caalvarez＠gmail.com Aug. 9, 2018

Aug. 9, 2018

Do most of you have the phones authenticate incoming calls? We haven't been, but occasionally find a router that has unfiltered full cone NAT (Cisco) or that puts one phone on 5060 with no filtering by IP. The result is that the phone will start ringing at random as script kiddies hit the IP and port 5060 trying to find servers to exploit. I don't see a downside to changing to auth, but not having done it outside of a few tests of a small number of phones, I figured I would ask.

8 22

SBCs - Ribbon and AudioCodes
by ryan＠finnesey.com Aug. 9, 2018

Aug. 9, 2018

I am going to have to install a series of SBCs for a? voice offering connected to Microsoft Teams.? We are going to pass the SIP traffic off to a large number of SIP providers.? I would like? to get some feedback from the group on SBCs from Ribbon and AudioCodes . I am leaning towards a software based SBC over an appliance. Would be helpful to get the other members feedback on Ribbon or AudioCodes deployments within their networks. Cheers Ryan

1 0