For the good of the order... We just worked through an issue in which 10 digit domestic calls were being routed (correctly) as domestic but rated and billed (incorrectly) as international. 503-nxx-xxxx were rated for El Salvador, etc. We caught it pretty early, and the carrier fixed it for us. Still, it was a pretty interesting problem to work through, and something to add to your list of "things that can go wrong". Best, David
May I ask who the carrier was? Ujjval Karihaloo -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of David Hiers Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:37 AM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] 10 digit craziness For the good of the order... We just worked through an issue in which 10 digit domestic calls were being routed (correctly) as domestic but rated and billed (incorrectly) as international. 503-nxx-xxxx were rated for El Salvador, etc. We caught it pretty early, and the carrier fixed it for us. Still, it was a pretty interesting problem to work through, and something to add to your list of "things that can go wrong". Best, David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Sorry, can't name names on this one... On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Ujjval Karihaloo <ujjval at simplesignal.com> wrote:
May I ask who the carrier was?
Ujjval Karihaloo
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of David Hiers Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:37 AM To: VoiceOps at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] 10 digit craziness
For the good of the order...
We just worked through an issue in which 10 digit domestic calls were being routed (correctly) as domestic but rated and billed (incorrectly) as international.
503-nxx-xxxx were rated for El Salvador, etc.
We caught it pretty early, and the carrier fixed it for us. ?Still, it was a pretty interesting problem to work through, and something to add to your list of "things that can go wrong".
Best,
David _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
David Hiers wrote:
Sorry, can't name names on this one...
Might fine way of LEVELing the GLOBAL VoIP playing field - keeping mum. Seasons greetings all. -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." - Warren Buffett 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E
On 12/22/09 10:37 AM, David Hiers wrote:
For the good of the order...
We just worked through an issue in which 10 digit domestic calls were being routed (correctly) as domestic but rated and billed (incorrectly) as international.
503-nxx-xxxx were rated for El Salvador, etc.
We caught it pretty early, and the carrier fixed it for us. Still, it was a pretty interesting problem to work through, and something to add to your list of "things that can go wrong".
An interesting issue. We almost had something similar happen internally because one of our carriers (soon to be ex-carrier) only sends and accepts ten digits on US calls, and country code without the + on international. The way our routing and billing is set up we expect to use the country code on all calls. They think we're strange to expect it that way. Something to add to the list of questions for potential carriers. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
We've encounters this problem a few times both when dealing with carriers and internally. When you start to mix VoIP and Traditional Telecom Carriers it can get hairy with all the different formats they want calls in, especially when you start dealing with international carriers. We ended up standardizing our internal voice network on a CC+CityCode format for all calls and then building specific translations for each carrier on their inbound and outbound trunks. Keith LeClaire WDT World Discount Telecommuncations / ALLVOI On 12/22/09 1:00 PM, "Carlos Alvarez" <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
On 12/22/09 10:37 AM, David Hiers wrote:
For the good of the order...
We just worked through an issue in which 10 digit domestic calls were being routed (correctly) as domestic but rated and billed (incorrectly) as international.
503-nxx-xxxx were rated for El Salvador, etc.
We caught it pretty early, and the carrier fixed it for us. Still, it was a pretty interesting problem to work through, and something to add to your list of "things that can go wrong".
An interesting issue. We almost had something similar happen internally because one of our carriers (soon to be ex-carrier) only sends and accepts ten digits on US calls, and country code without the + on international. The way our routing and billing is set up we expect to use the country code on all calls. They think we're strange to expect it that way.
Something to add to the list of questions for potential carriers.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
An interesting issue. We almost had something similar happen internally because one of our carriers (soon to be ex-carrier) only sends and accepts ten digits on US calls, and country code without the + on international. The way our routing and billing is set up we expect to use the country code on all calls. They think we're strange to expect it that way.
I'm kinda sick of all of us US-based folk thinking we don't have to use our country code. I think all wholesale VoIP providers, even if they just handle US/Canada, should require the use of the leading country code for all calls, NANPA-terminated included, and for origination that CallerID should ALWAYS include the country code. You know how hard it is to standardize, both internally and globally, when most telecom providers only support 10 digit caller ID? What about the UK? What about China? And when callerID comes in, and it doesn't conform to NANPA NPANXXXXXX, what country IS it from? I can guess, but I'd like to know, not guess. Seriously, when will we get together to realize that telecom is a GLOBAL enterprise and that we should all be pushing for support for the already open standards like E.123, E.164, RFC 3966, etc? None of my providers follow ANY of these standards -- we have to write code that translates our Standards-based system into their hacks. Annoying. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats unusual, I have found that everybody I use for origination and termination supports E.164, some require it and sometimes you need to shout at them a little bit, but they always give in and configure support for it. It is for the reasons David posted that I wont do any peering side traffic that isn't in full E.164, and I only do 10D format on the access side. On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 15:31 -0500, Peter Beckman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
An interesting issue. We almost had something similar happen internally because one of our carriers (soon to be ex-carrier) only sends and accepts ten digits on US calls, and country code without the + on international. The way our routing and billing is set up we expect to use the country code on all calls. They think we're strange to expect it that way.
I'm kinda sick of all of us US-based folk thinking we don't have to use our country code. I think all wholesale VoIP providers, even if they just handle US/Canada, should require the use of the leading country code for all calls, NANPA-terminated included, and for origination that CallerID should ALWAYS include the country code.
You know how hard it is to standardize, both internally and globally, when most telecom providers only support 10 digit caller ID? What about the UK? What about China? And when callerID comes in, and it doesn't conform to NANPA NPANXXXXXX, what country IS it from? I can guess, but I'd like to know, not guess.
Seriously, when will we get together to realize that telecom is a GLOBAL enterprise and that we should all be pushing for support for the already open standards like E.123, E.164, RFC 3966, etc?
None of my providers follow ANY of these standards -- we have to write code that translates our Standards-based system into their hacks. Annoying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, anorexicpoodle wrote:
Thats unusual, I have found that everybody I use for origination and termination supports E.164, some require it and sometimes you need to shout at them a little bit, but they always give in and configure support for it. It is for the reasons David posted that I wont do any peering side traffic that isn't in full E.164, and I only do 10D format on the access side.
Which I understand. Customers don't care about standards, they want to be lazy and dial 7 digits like the olden days, or 10 digits because they are lazy. Remember when that lady came on the phone to tell you that you did it wrong and you needed to "Dial a 1 (one) when calling this number." Ahhh, the good ole days. Now customers just gripe about it and we yield. But we can convert their lazy to E.164, and I wish everyone did. Do any US DID providers offer full E.164 CallerID? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
I'm kinda sick of all of us US-based folk thinking we don't have to use our country code. I think all wholesale VoIP providers, even if they just handle US/Canada, should require the use of the leading country code for all calls, NANPA-terminated included, and for origination that CallerID should ALWAYS include the country code.
I agree that country code plus number is the bare minimum, but I've only run into one carrier that refused to ("couldn't") do that. Ironic because they also do international origination, so calls are delivered to us without any way to know if they are US area+number or country+number.
You know how hard it is to standardize, both internally and globally, when most telecom providers only support 10 digit caller ID? What about the UK? What about China? And when callerID comes in, and it doesn't conform to NANPA NPANXXXXXX, what country IS it from? I can guess, but I'd like to know, not guess.
I've never run into an issue with the CID side of things. I don't think it's that important, but maybe others do. We just pass it along as it is. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 Advanced phone services simplified
I'm all for e.164 everywhere, no assumptions required. David On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
I'm kinda sick of all of us US-based folk thinking we don't have to use our country code. I think all wholesale VoIP providers, even if they just handle US/Canada, should require the use of the leading country code for all calls, NANPA-terminated included, and for origination that CallerID should ALWAYS include the country code.
I agree that country code plus number is the bare minimum, but I've only run into one carrier that refused to ("couldn't") do that. ?Ironic because they also do international origination, so calls are delivered to us without any way to know if they are US area+number or country+number.
You know how hard it is to standardize, both internally and globally, when most telecom providers only support 10 digit caller ID? What about the UK? What about China? And when callerID comes in, and it doesn't conform to NANPA NPANXXXXXX, what country IS it from? I can guess, but I'd like to know, not guess.
I've never run into an issue with the CID side of things. ?I don't think it's that important, but maybe others do. ?We just pass it along as it is.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
The caveat being, if you deviate in any way from the Provider defaults, some of them have a bad habit of reverting your trunk to their internal N-digit standard when some random tech goes through periodic cleanup or upgrades (not that we've ever seen that happen :-}. That said, 110% agreed. now if only we can convince the Providers... David Hiers wrote:
I'm all for e.164 everywhere, no assumptions required.
David
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
I'm kinda sick of all of us US-based folk thinking we don't have to use our country code. I think all wholesale VoIP providers, even if they just handle US/Canada, should require the use of the leading country code for all calls, NANPA-terminated included, and for origination that CallerID should ALWAYS include the country code.
I agree that country code plus number is the bare minimum, but I've only run into one carrier that refused to ("couldn't") do that. Ironic because they also do international origination, so calls are delivered to us without any way to know if they are US area+number or country+number.
You know how hard it is to standardize, both internally and globally, when most telecom providers only support 10 digit caller ID? What about the UK? What about China? And when callerID comes in, and it doesn't conform to NANPA NPANXXXXXX, what country IS it from? I can guess, but I'd like to know, not guess.
I've never run into an issue with the CID side of things. I don't think it's that important, but maybe others do. We just pass it along as it is.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Advanced phone services simplified _______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
anorexicpoodle＠gmail.com -
beckman＠angryox.com -
carlos＠televolve.com -
hch＠sipster.com -
hiersd＠gmail.com -
kleclaire＠mywdt.com -
sil＠infiltrated.net -
ujjval＠simplesignal.com