Subject: [Ecrit] ANI

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:44:44 -0400

For the purposes of drawing similarities to current E-911, is the From 
header or the Contact header to be analogous to the ANI?

And a slightly off-topic question... I've run into references to ANI 
stating it is 8 digits, 7 for the local phone number and 1 short code 
representing area code.  Does anybody know if this is still the case?

-andy

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Byron Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:53:09 -0400

> header or the Contact header to be analogous to the ANI?
Yes
> representing area code.  Does anybody know if this is still the case?
Sadly, it is the norm for CAMA (MF) trunks.  In fact, many 911 switches 
only send a "0" in the NPD position, and ignore it on an incoming call, 
so separate trunk groups are required for each area code.

Byron

---

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:05:03 -0400

> 
> For the purposes of drawing similarities to current E-911, is 
> the From header or the Contact header to be analogous to the ANI?

I believe it's From.

> 
> And a slightly off-topic question... I've run into references 
> to ANI stating it is 8 digits, 7 for the local phone number 
> and 1 short code representing area code.  Does anybody know 
> if this is still the case?

It depends on the selective router.  In addition to 7 or 8, some will accept
10 digits and a few will accept 20 digits.

-Marc-

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:15:57 -0400

> so separate trunk groups are required for each area code.

So I guess it is also true that a lot of PSAP software cannot handle 
expanded ANI formats, making adoption of Wireless E911 Phase I 
problematic.  I hope somebody is reminding the vendors that they should 
also handle URIs.

Out of curiosity, has there ever been in any attempt to solve the 
home/visited emergency dial plan issue in the Wireless E911 space?

-andy

---

From: Byron Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:34:53 -0400

Andrew Newton wrote:
>>> stating it is 8 digits, 7 for the local phone number and 1 short 
>>> code representing area code.  Does anybody know if this is still the 
>>> case?
>>>
>> Sadly, it is the norm for CAMA (MF) trunks.  In fact, many 911 
>> switches only send a "0" in the NPD position, and ignore it on an 
>> incoming call, so separate trunk groups are required for each area code.
>
> problematic.  I hope somebody is reminding the vendors that they 
> should also handle URIs.
>
Perhaps I slightly over-stated the situation.

A good many 911 tandem to PSAP trunks are "enhanced MF", or 10 digits.  
In Indiana, probably 98% of the PSAPs are 10-digit MF trunks.

However, from local exchange office / or MSC to 911 tandem, easily the 
majority, probably 80%, are 8 digit, with the NPD = 0, unless they are 
using ISUP trunks.  If SS7 ISUP, then it is 10 digit.  

Again, in Indiana, only about 15% of the incoming trunks to the 911 
tandem are ISUP.  The rest are MF.   Out of 17 wireline 911 tandems in 
the state, only 3 are SS7 capable.  Probably only about 5% of the 
inter-tandem MF trunks are 10-digits, because few of the originating 
switches support anything other than 0 + 7 digits for MF outpulsing.

Byron

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:30:25 -0400

> switches support anything other than 0 + 7 digits for MF outpulsing.

Byron,

I made a slight context switch there and didn't adequately state the 
question.  I was not actually asking about the routing aspect of a 
visited emergency number, though that is an issue.  I was actually 
wondering about the recognition of a home emergency number being used in 
a visited network.  As in, if I dial 112 in North America, does the 
network recognize 112 as an emergency phone number.  I was just curious 
if there were any attempts to solve this problem in the cellular phone 
space.

-andy

---

From: Byron Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:15:55 -0400

Andrew Newton wrote:
>> A good many 911 tandem to PSAP trunks are "enhanced MF", or 10 
>> digits.  In Indiana, probably 98% of the PSAPs are 10-digit MF trunks.
>>
>> However, from local exchange office / or MSC to 911 tandem, easily 
>> the majority, probably 80%, are 8 digit, with the NPD = 0, unless 
>> they are using ISUP trunks.  If SS7 ISUP, then it is 10 digit. Again, 
>> in Indiana, only about 15% of the incoming trunks to the 911 tandem 
>> are ISUP.  The rest are MF.   Out of 17 wireline 911 tandems in the 
>> state, only 3 are SS7 capable.  Probably only about 5% of the 
> wondering about the recognition of a home emergency number being used 
> in a visited network.  As in, if I dial 112 in North America, does the 
> network recognize 112 as an emergency phone number.
To my knowledge, no.  Generally not in the USA.

The originating host switch for the call, be it wireline or wireless, 
would have to have a translation to recognize, for example, 112, as an 
emergency call, and then route that call to an appropriate 911 
destination, typically a trunk group to a 911 tandem. 

While there is probably nothing that would preclude a operating company 
from providing a 112 code translation, or other such codes, I doubt that 
you will find it implemented in very many switches in the US.  
(Actually, some codes might be a bit of a problem to implement in that 
they would be prefixes to local dial plans, but there are usually ways 
around such problems, usually involving time-outs.)

The only places where I personally have seen this done is in locations 
that might get a lot of international visitors.  For example, in the 
British Virgin Islands, I believe you can dial 911, 111, or 999, and get 
the same result.

Byron
> I was just curious if there were any attempts to solve this problem in 
> the cellular phone space.
>
> -andy
>
>

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:29:45 -0400

Depends on what you are using it for.

A subscriber would use From:

A network operator (and emergency calling) would use SIP Identity, or, for
the time being, P-A-I

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:05 AM
To: 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] ANI

I believe it's From.

-Marc-

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:32:11 -0400

> A network operator (and emergency calling) would use SIP Identity, or, for

Where have we documented this?

-andy

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:35:36 -0400

Nowhere yet.  It would probably go in the phone BCP (in the proxy server
behavior part) and also probably in the architecture document.  Don't think
it would occur anywhere in any LoST work.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:30 PM
To: 'Marc Linsner'; 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] ANI

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:05 AM
To: 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] ANI

I believe it's From.

-Marc-