Eircom allocating 052 in 0504 area

Grab All Association

Few numbers in Thurles town PSTN lines with 052 numbers. 0504 is the Thurles/Templemore area code. I know there's a shortage of numbers in Thurles the past few years so maybe thats why?

0504-2xxxx Thurles
0504-3xxxx Templemore but now allocated to Thurles residents
0504-4xxxx Littleton/Holycross again in use in Thurles
0504-5xxxx Borrisoleigh, Bouladuff but used in Thurles
0504-6xxxx Thurles
0504-9xxxx Thurles

I assume comreg won't allow use of 1,7,8 and adding two numbers would make it the longest in Ireland so this is why 052 is being used instead?

ED E

This has been possible since 1999 or thereabouts. With old kit your number routed in hardware. Post digitization any number can go anywhere, just like an IP address can be moved from Antwerp to Athlone. Lots of 01 numbers arent in Dublin.

Victor

Geographic area codes aren't really needed any more as many operators no longer differentiate between local and national calls.

The general trend is to get rid of long area codes and move to 7-digit phone numbers - there are only 0402, 0404, 0504, 0504 left.

That gives us capacity for something like 400 million phone numbers, when 5 million people probably need no more than 20 million phone numbers. We could see further simplification.

Current map https://www.comreg.ie/industry/licensing/numbering/area-code-maps-2/

Back in the 1980s, I'm sure there were some 5-digit ones (with 4-digit phone numbers).

rmacm

Grab All Association wrote: »

Few numbers in Thurles town PSTN lines with 052 numbers. 0504 is the Thurles/Templemore area code. I know there's a shortage of numbers in Thurles the past few years so maybe thats why?

0504-2xxxx Thurles
0504-3xxxx Templemore but now allocated to Thurles residents
0504-4xxxx Littleton/Holycross again in use in Thurles
0504-5xxxx Borrisoleigh, Bouladuff but used in Thurles
0504-6xxxx Thurles
0504-9xxxx Thurles

I assume comreg won't allow use of 1,7,8 and adding two numbers would make it the longest in Ireland so this is why 052 is being used instead?

As Victor mentioned geographic codes aren't really needed these days.

The company I work for uses a single area code (0228) even though we have offices across Germany. The advantage is that if I get a call from a number beginning with +49 228 I know it is more than likely work related.

The disadvantage is that I don't know from what part of Germany it's coming from unless I recognise the number or have it saved as a known contact.

EdgeCase

We're badly missing a non-geographical landline code that doesn't charge at some weird rate. A lot of people no longer necessarily need or want a number tied to one particular area / exchange.

0818 was supposed to do that but it doesn't quite work as mobile and landline operators charge a fortune to call it.

Landlines are going to go the way of fax machines and payphones. I'd argue in favour of allocating new landlines with a code like 033 and allowing people to migrate their landline services to non-geographic codes, perhaps giving them an incentive to do so.

I mean, most businesses hardly want to have a number tied to one geographical region anymore and most households don't seem to be too bothered with landline anymore.

You'd have to ban landline and mobile operators from charging this as 'out of bundle' non-geographic though. It would simply have to be something like 033 charged as a geographical, landline number regardless of what network you're calling from, so no more ripoffs with 1850 and 0818 and a genuinely useful numbering system that could ultimately allow total flexibility for people with fixed lines.

You'd end ups with something like :

+353 33 999 9999

Johnboy1951

You'd have to ban landline and mobile operators from charging this as 'out of bundle' non-geographic though.

They failed to do that when the 076 (VOIP) numbers were allocated which effectively killed off their use. They could have been the most useful number for all consumers ....... free calls between numbers carried over the broadband network.

I would be surprised if they got it right in the future!

tsue921i8wljb3

I think Comreg are currently looking at non-geographic numbers including 076.

https://www.comreg.ie/publication/review-non-geographic-numbers/

EdgeCase

It just seems like preserving a gargantuan bureaucracy that harks back to the days of crossbar exchanges, instead of just going with where the tech is going and letting the legacy stuff fizzle out

076 was also very confusing as everyone thought you were calling from Donegal. We got rid of one of those numbers for work because of that.

If you forgot about the confusing attempts like 076, 0818, 1850, 1890 and just rolled out a new 033 code that was clear and simple to understand and then allowed all the other stuff to fizzle out over time, there'd be no great cost, disruption or messing.

Johnboy1951

Payton Purple Someday wrote: »

I think Comreg are currently looking at non-geographic numbers including 076.

https://www.comreg.ie/publication/review-non-geographic-numbers/

yeah, and the last I read they intend to make things worse than they are or were with 076 numbers.

Johnboy1951

EdgeCase wrote: »

It just seems like preserving a gargantuan bureaucracy that harks back to the days of crossbar exchanges, instead of just going with where the tech is going and letting the legacy stuff fizzle out

076 was also very confusing as everyone thought you were calling from Donegal. We got rid of one of those numbers for work because of that.

If you forgot about the confusing attempts like 076, 0818, 1850, 1890 and just rolled out a new 033 code that was clear and simple to understand and then allowed all the other stuff to fizzle out over time, there'd be no great cost, disruption or messing.

I could not care less whether they used 076 or some other numbers, but the facility that was put in place for free VOIP calling using numbers was huge, while at the same time the numbers could be used to receive a call from a non-076 number. A minimum charge to route the incoming calls was all that was needed.
I expect they got a lot of complaints from those who have been raping us with call charges for many decades and would like to continue to do so.

I very much doubt the commercial interests will allow anything like that to raise its head again.

EdgeCase

Whole thing is totally stupid. They’re just allowing the legacy operators to squeeze the last drops of profit out of 40 year old infrastructure, most of which was paid for by the state anyway ...

In the meanstime, lack of a simple way of addressing VoIP is just handing Facebook (WhatsApp) and Apple etc a huge % or traffic that could go over open networks.

Johnboy1951

Would it not be nice to have a 'mobile' phone for making and receiving calls that would default to using a Wifi connection when available, and use a mobile data connection if not.
This phone would have your 'voip' number, which would allow you to call other 'voip' numbers without cost ..... and that means no monthly 'allowance' of various types of calls and the associated costs.
So the number of calls being made over the mobile phone masts would reduce drastically.

Because it is 'voip' it could be arranged to first try the mobile, then any other 'voip' number until answered or it hits a recording.

So no need for mobile 'plans', or time-sensitive calling or any other of that malarkey that is going on with certain numbers being outside normal plans.

A lot of this can be done today .... using a variety of 'apps' which don't like to talk to each other, which is ridiculous from the consumers point of view.

For a lot of people the equivalent (in function) of a desk phone is all that is needed when mobile. But the facilities would need to be provided ... such as the 076 numbering system.

For those who want a computer and camera and radio etc. in a phone body the present system and phones would fill their need.

EdgeCase

That’s already almost the case with WiFi calling, other than you’re using a plan but for most of us they’re virtually unlimited anyway.

On my Eir mobile, when I’m in the house it jumps over to WiFi calling when I’m out and about it’s using mobile. The whole things being achieved because Eir use an IMS platform that is basically a VoIP softswitch.

Without opening it up to SIP based VoIP, they’re already losing traffic handover fist to closed, proprietary over the top VoIP run by Facebook (WhatsApp), Apple (Facetime), Skype, telegram and others and they all use your mobile number as the address / unique ID.

By not opening up to genuine VoIP they're driving more and more into the hands of big IT companies and social media operators.

It's already the case that mobile companies are primarily just selling data. That's been accepted by most of them and they're making good money out of it.

I think it's long pasy due that they accept that circuit switched telephony isn't a viable model of business anymore.

Johnboy1951

but for most of us they’re virtually unlimited anyway.

Not really ...... and at the same time you are locked into one provider.

EdgeCase

They're only an address though. You can equally use any unique identifier; an email address for example. I don't really see phone numbers remaining as the primary way of setting up voice communications. They're as user friendly as dialing raw IP addresses.

Johnboy1951

EdgeCase wrote: »

They're only an address though. You can equally use any unique identifier; an email address for example. I don't really see phone numbers remaining as the primary way of setting up voice communications. They're as user friendly as dialing raw IP addresses.

It is not possible to 'dial' a new 'email address type' of a VOIP contact from the majority of desk/house phones.
While known ones can be kept in a contact list, new ones are a problem.

I am not fixated on numbers either, and would much prefer to dial
edgecase@sip.boards.com
or such, but it just is not possible presently.
So the allocation of a number to that address is the obvious solution until all the deskphones/home phones/DECT phones are replaced by something that can.

EdgeCase

It's possible on every smartphone, which are already the majority of phones.
90% of the Irish population had a smartphone in 2017. A simple phone with only a 2G GSM connection and a dial pad would be quite rare.

As at Q4 1.473 million fixed voice subscriptions (all technologies) (1.07m on the 'classic' PSTN) in Ireland and 4.889 million mobile phone subscriptions (excluding accounts used for machine-to-machine or mobile broadband only)

The way things are headed, the majority of voice traffic will probably end up going via proprietary VoIP apps anyway. I think the mobile and fixed line networks are being morons by not opening the standards and using generic VoIP as they're just making their products less flexible and the customers will be gone regardless.

Trying to lock people into PSTN services isn't a viable business proposition even in the short to medium term, never mind long term. It's dying fast.

My view of it is open up a sensible prefix for VoIP that doesn't get billed ridiculously or cause confusion with the Northwest and optionally also start allocating all new fixed line numbers on a similar non-geographic prefix.

There's no point in continuing to flog a dead horse.

Johnboy1951

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's possible on every smartphone, which are already the majority of phones.
90% of the Irish population had a smartphone in 2017. A simple phone with only a 2G GSM connection and a dial pad would be quite rare.

It matters not how many mobile phones are in use or sold.
The system cannot abandon the many homes with phones and particularly the many businesses with multiples of phones in offices throughout the country.

As at Q4 1.473 million fixed voice subscriptions (all technologies) (1.07m on the 'classic' PSTN) in Ireland and 4.889 million mobile phone subscriptions (excluding accounts used for machine-to-machine or mobile broadband only)

The way things are headed, the majority of voice traffic will probably end up going via proprietary VoIP apps anyway. I think the mobile and fixed line networks are being morons by not opening the standards and using generic VoIP as they're just making their products less flexible and the customers will be gone regardless.

Trying to lock people into PSTN services isn't a viable business proposition even in the short to medium term, never mind long term. It's dying fast.

My view of it is open up a sensible prefix for VoIP that doesn't get billed ridiculously or cause confusion with the Northwest and optionally also start allocating all new fixed line numbers on a similar non-geographic prefix.

There's no point in continuing to flog a dead horse.

It appeared that things were being done right, from the beginning, with the 076 SIP VOIP numbering (OK maybe the prefix confused some, but only those who at the time were not aware of VOIP).
Disposing of all prefixes for ordinary connections would be one way to go, and maybe some special numbering for those 'extra' services provided via voice connection.
All connections should have access to a 'number', regardless how the voice data is transmitted .... through walled garden providers; legacy services or personal free SIP account.
In other words I should be able to get a number for my own use and marry that to any service I wish ..... regardless provider.

In short I do not see the demise of the 'number' regardless what that actually connects to.
I completely agree the numbering system and connections to each one should be open and available to all from some central database.

Cuddlesworth

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Would it not be nice to have a 'mobile' phone for making and receiving calls that would default to using a Wifi connection when available, and use a mobile data connection if not.
This phone would have your 'voip' number, which would allow you to call other 'voip' numbers without cost ..... and that means no monthly 'allowance' of various types of calls and the associated costs.
So the number of calls being made over the mobile phone masts would reduce drastically.

When Voip number A makes a call to Voip number B, how does A know where to send the voip call?

Johnboy1951

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

When Voip number A makes a call to Voip number B, how does A know where to send the voip call?

The same way you know what phone number to call if you wanted to call anyone on a mobile phone.

Cuddlesworth

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The same way you know what phone number to call if you wanted to call anyone on a mobile phone.

Its not a phone network though. Voip is a application running over a IP network.

In order for it to work, somebody has to deploy, run and maintain infrastructure in order for phone A to connect to phone B. That comes with a cost. Phone A can't connect directly to phone B, as it doesn't know where phone B and would not be allowed to just connect to it even if it did.

In order for it to work well, the bandwidth on that network has to be guaranteed since Voip traffic is treated the same as all other internet traffic.

For that to happen, private networks have to be created between each device and each piece of infrastructure. A new protocol and frequency would have to be created on each phone, allowing better connectivity to the masts, then what 4g could provide.

Then when other companies, services or regions want to connect to it, they would need to have private interconnects and those interconnects would have to deployed, run and maintained.

They would need support and maintenance agreements, security frameworks, to avoid issues abuse etc.

And at the end of you, you know what you have. A modern telecoms system that looks very much like the current one.

Johnboy1951

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its not a phone network though. Voip is a application running over a IP network.

In order for it to work, somebody has to deploy, run and maintain infrastructure in order for phone A to connect to phone B. That comes with a cost. Phone A can't connect directly to phone B, as it doesn't know where phone B and would not be allowed to just connect to it even if it did.

In order for it to work well, the bandwidth on that network has to be guaranteed since Voip traffic is treated the same as all other internet traffic.

For that to happen, private networks have to be created between each device and each piece of infrastructure. A new protocol and frequency would have to be created on each phone, allowing better connectivity to the masts, then what 4g could provide.

Then when other companies, services or regions want to connect to it, they would need to have private interconnects and those interconnects would have to deployed, run and maintained.

They would need support and maintenance agreements, security frameworks, to avoid issues abuse etc.

And at the end of you, you know what you have. A modern telecoms system that looks very much like the current one.

the sip domain that receives the contact, just passes that on to the 'user' specified in the URI so does not handle any of the call data.
the phone rings at the called end and is either picked up or not as the case may be. All traffic is one to one.

There is also a 'presence' capability so you can know beforehand if the called phone is connected.

So the huge difficulties you 'see' do not exist as far as I can determine.

EDIT:
Forgot to mention that yes it is possible to connect one phone to another without an intermediary if so desired - and set up to do so on both ends.

Cuddlesworth

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

the sip domain that receives the contact, just passes that on to the 'user' specified in the URI so does not handle any of the call data.
the phone rings at the called end and is either picked up or not as the case may be. All traffic is one to one.

The SIP URI has to resolve to a IP. With a phone, that IP changes constantly and is behind NAT because data networks are complex and un-trusted. So in order for the dialling to work, the phone has to maintain a constant connection to its SIP registration server. With a couple of hundred thousand devices registering, gets real expensive, real fast.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There is also a 'presence' capability so you can know beforehand if the called phone is connected.

Presence is again, a response from a server.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So the huge difficulties you 'see' do not exist as far as I can determine.

Because you don't really understand how Voip calls work or how modern IP networks work.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

EDIT:
Forgot to mention that yes it is possible to connect one phone to another without an intermediary if so desired - and set up to do so on both ends.

To be very clear on this, you cannot create a connection to a remote device running on 4G, that you do not know the IP of and that hasn't prepared for a incoming connection. And that hasn't given you details of how to get into it through its connectivity.

And that call is prone to bad quality which is unsupportable.

EdgeCase

This is what I don't get:

At present in the PSTN a large % (trending towards all calls) are routed intelligently. The phone number is analysed by the fixed line or mobile switching system and the destination is determined based on a database lookup. That's how the network knows that your number is with a particular provider or has been ported or even that call forwarding is active. It's more like the way a URL is translated into an IP address by a DNS server.

This wasn't the case before number porting was possible and the network used to route just based on the structure of the phone number, much as it had done in the days before digital switching. Any intelligent network functions were limited to tertiary level services like 1800 and 1850 and so on. Fixed line number porting and more complex routing with multiple operators changed a that.

If you call an 076 number on a VoIP phone, it's not a complete SIP address, so the softswitch still has to look it up, figure out where it's hosted and then route over the internet.

Surely the most logical thing would be to make access to the routing database as open and cheap as possible?

That way if I call 01 xxx xxxx or 076 XXX xxxx or 056 XXX xxxx my VoIP phone service will be able to see immediately that that's actually @sip.provider.ie or that is still a PSTN number or that needs to go through a traditional non IP route and gateway or that it's a PSTN number that can be connected to through a SIP trunk route etc etc

Just having a special prefix doesn't strike me as enough. We need an open, DNS like routing database. Once you've got that in place properly it would mean you can route voice traffic anyway you like using VoIP and IP over the internet, across private networks using SIP or across the traditional PSTN.

Johnboy1951

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The SIP URI has to resolve to a IP. With a phone, that IP changes constantly and is behind NAT because data networks are complex and un-trusted. So in order for the dialling to work, the phone has to maintain a constant connection to its SIP registration server. With a couple of hundred thousand devices registering, gets real expensive, real fast.



Presence is again, a response from a server.



Because you don't really understand how Voip calls work or how modern IP networks work.



To be very clear on this, you cannot create a connection to a remote device running on 4G, that you do not know the IP of and that hasn't prepared for a incoming connection. And that hasn't given you details of how to get into it through its connectivity.

And that call is prone to bad quality which is unsupportable.

Ah, so you are specifically addressing the difficulties of doing VOIP calling on the likes of 4G/3G/whatever.

You are indeed correct in that I know little or nothing about how such mobile systems are set up or operate behind the scenes.

As far as I am aware, once a VOIP capable phone can connect to the internet then VOIP calling is relatively light on VOIP servers who only have to create the connection, and not deal with the data. The data is between the two connected phones.

4G phones can make such calls presently using various applications.
I understand they can also receive calls addressed to their (through the app) registered VOIP account .... carried on their internet connection.

I am unsure what specific difficulties you perceive with integrating this more deeply into the phone.

Cuddlesworth

EdgeCase wrote: »

This is what I don't get:

At present in the PSTN a large % (trending towards all calls) are routed intelligently. The phone number is analysed by the fixed line or mobile switching system and the destination is determined based on a database lookup. That's how the network knows that your number is with a particular provider or has been ported or even that call forwarding is active. It's more like the way a URL is translated into an IP address by a DNS server.

This wasn't the case before number porting was possible and the network used to route just based on the structure of the phone number, much as it had done in the days before digital switching. Any intelligent network functions were limited to tertiary level services like 1800 and 1850 and so on. Fixed line number porting and more complex routing with multiple operators changed a that.

If you call an 076 number on a VoIP phone, it's not a complete SIP address, so the softswitch still has to look it up, figure out where it's hosted and then route over the internet.

Surely the most logical thing would be to make access to the routing database as open and cheap as possible?

That way if I call 01 xxx xxxx or 076 XXX xxxx or 056 XXX xxxx my VoIP phone service will be able to see immediately that that's actually @sip.provider.ie or that is still a PSTN number or that needs to go through a traditional non IP route and gateway or that it's a PSTN number that can be connected to through a SIP trunk route etc etc

Just having a special prefix doesn't strike me as enough. We need an open, DNS like routing database. Once you've got that in place properly it would mean you can route voice traffic anyway you like using VoIP and IP over the internet, across private networks using SIP or across the traditional PSTN.

I'm not sure if I quite understand what it is you are asking.

Anybody can create a SIP URI. The domain can point back to a IP address specific to that URI using a DNS SRV. Not only that but the address could both be the SIP address and E164 address, 01xxxxxxx@example.com. Clients could parse the address and try both options, assuming they have connectivity to both.

There is also the DNS mapping of E164 numbers, using .164.arpa. I don't see the incentive from carriers to do that for a number of reasons and it hasn't really caught on.

Closed systems like Lync basically do this though, if I ring a internal E164 number that's Lync registered its routed via SIP to the client. Never touches legacy phone systems.

Apple does a similar system in reverse, where your apple ID is registered to the phone number. When dialling or texting another recognised PSTN number, the device instead uses the data connection and apples services to make the call/text. That's doable because its a closed system in a limited environment.

When you have a open system in a open environment, you gets tons of opportunity for malicious behaviour. So most Voip systems are closed off from the internet and use processes like federation to minimise impact.

That's the problem with data networks and modern devices. They can do far more then just make a voip call, which makes them far more prone to be used for unintended purposes. So everything built with data networks in mind, is built to be closed off by default.

With a legacy phone network, the only traffic that passes is phone traffic. That traffic is strictly limited in what it can or can't do and as such, can be treated in a different manner. Part of that limitation is in the numbering schemes.

If you talking about just opening up the global E164 numbering system, so that anybody could take any number, then what stops me taking yours?

DNS and E164 are not very different in concept. They both point back to a underlying device and transport system which handles the call. You have to register them both with a authority who keeps control of it for you and stops others from stealing it from you. The systems in general are a mix of trust and limitations.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Ah, so you are specifically addressing the difficulties of doing VOIP calling on the likes of 4G/3G/whatever.

You are indeed correct in that I know little or nothing about how such mobile systems are set up or operate behind the scenes.

As far as I am aware, once a VOIP capable phone can connect to the internet then VOIP calling is relatively light on VOIP servers who only have to create the connection, and not deal with the data. The data is between the two connected phones.

4G phones can make such calls presently using various applications.
I understand they can also receive calls addressed to their (through the app) registered VOIP account .... carried on their internet connection.

I am unsure what specific difficulties you perceive with integrating this more deeply into the phone.

Voip calling is light on resources. SIP or similar technologies require registration, which gets costly as it scales to the size of a modern PSTN telephone system. Somebody has to pay for that. Even if you moved to a VOIP only system, your going to get charged one way or another. It being either added to the data charges or charged as a separate service, or selling your data off to other companies. What'sapp may be free to you, but they have to make money in some way.

The fundamental difference between Voip and PSTN* is this,
In the internet, your traffic is not supported past best effort, its path is not defined and it is not guaranteed to arrive.
In a PSTN network, your traffic is supported, its path is defined and it is meant to be guaranteed to arrive.

If your network calls are badly messed up, especially from a landline, you can ring up and get support. And that is very unlikey to happen in the first place.
If your whatsapp or skype calls are badly messed up, tough ****. And its going to happen.

Part of the reason why voice services have not just wiped out the PSTN industry is that they are based on a network that is fundamentally flawed.

EdgeCase

What I'm saying is that an 076 number is not a SIP URI anymore than 01 or 021 is. It's just a non geographic code allocated for VoIP use.

076 999 9999 tells me nothing other than it might be a VoIP number and gives no information about the associated URI unless you've access to a database to look it up.

If you wanted to open the routing of calls to be totally technology neutral, you'd need to open the databases behind routing calls generally to users that aren't just telcos. A lot of the numbers at present wouldn't be reachable as a URI but that could potentially change as the PSTN and mobile networks become VoIP based.

Obviously you'd get better quality and reliability over dedicated routing and properly managed hardware and we will have to pay for that but it doesn't mean it can't be fully open and that people can have the choice of whatever QoS they're willing to pay for.

The alternative is we all get locked into new proprietary networks like facetime, Skype and WhatsApp.

Cuddlesworth

EdgeCase wrote: »

What I'm saying is that an 076 number is not a SIP URI anymore than 01 or 021 is. It's just a non geographic code allocated for VoIP use.

076 999 9999 tells me nothing other than it might be a VoIP number and gives no information about the associated URI unless you've access to a database to look it up.

If your going to assign Voip providers E164 numbers, they have to be geographic independent, that the point of VOIP clients. And you know what the identifier is, its the number.

What do you want to know about the number? Who owns it, where they are located? What if they don't want that information released(which has always been a thing)?

EdgeCase wrote: »

If you wanted to open the routing of calls to be totally technology neutral, you'd need to open the databases behind routing calls generally to users that aren't just telcos. A lot of the numbers at present wouldn't be reachable as a URI but that could potentially change as the PSTN and mobile networks become VoIP based.

The databases are open. You can buy a SIP trunk from hundreds of companies and make calls to any E164 numbers around the world.

EdgeCase wrote: »

Obviously you'd get better quality and reliability over dedicated routing and properly managed hardware and we will have to pay for that but it doesn't mean it can't be fully open and that people can have the choice of whatever QoS they're willing to pay for.

How do you differentiate between my gaming traffic and your voice traffic? How do you monitor it, maintain it and deploy it? QOS is not used outside of private networks for a reason.

if you want actual reliability, you end up creating a private network. Which very quickly ends up as modern day phone system.

EdgeCase wrote: »

The alternative is we all get locked into new proprietary networks like facetime, Skype and WhatsApp.

Services like that have sprung up because a free and open standard is unworkable for the purposes of voice communications in a commercial environment.

I'm not hugely in touch with the individual facing side of the telecoms industry but I could take a rough guess that outside of the last mile, very little of it is left that is not transported over IP internally on private networks. EG PSTN calls are most probably Voip calls once your call hits the local exchange or mast.

EdgeCase

It’s actually still a kludge of SS7, TDM and some VoIP. The transition is still far from complete with the older aspects of the telcos. There’s virtualization going on beteeen the era of technologies. We’re a few years away from 100% VoIP behind the scenes.

There are already database look ups used in the PSTN and mobile networks in a mixed non VoIP and VoIP environment. When you call a number, the exchange / network at some point looks it up and checks where it’s routing it. Originally that was only used for special services like 1800 but it’s increasingly used for all calls due to number porting.

It needs to know what the phone number refers to - where it’s hosted.
For example, if you ring 01 999 9999 it could mean that the number is on an OpenEir TDM switch in Dublin, it could be on an Eir, Vodafone, Digiweb, Virgin or any VoIP provider’s soft switches, it could be forwarding calls...

If you ring 087 xxx xxxx the system needs to know the what carrier to send it to. They all (including the MVNOs) run their own switching systems and other infrastructure.

So there’s a lot of information needed much like the way a URL refers to an IP address when it’s looked up on DNS servers.

I’ve actually had the weird scenario where a UK mobile network was routing traffic into Viber. So when you called an Irish 087 number for example, if the number was registered with viber, the uk mobile network’s switches identified that and sent the traffic to the viber network instead of the PSTN, so viber rang on the app, not the phone. There was no viber app installed at the callers side.

It meant they weren’t paying termination charges if they could dump the call into viber and out of the PSTN.

Cuddlesworth

This is oddly interesting, does Ireland not already do this?

If I move my mobile or home number to another provider, how does traffic know to flowto that provider directly?
Are they maintaining databases with every single E164 in the country coupled with a underlying identifier for routing/pathing? I see landline networks use 8 digit UAN codes for that purpose, which I assume are segmented per vendor.

For what Johnboy wants to do, ENUM(E164 over DNS) does it. It doesn't address the unreliability or un-trustworthiness of the internet but its a numbering system that ties back into DNS allowing devices to connect and or update their IP address. End result would be borked though, cause of NAT/Firewalls.

Johnboy1951

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

This is oddly interesting, does Ireland not already do this?

If I move my mobile or home number to another provider, how does traffic know to flowto that provider directly?
Are they maintaining databases with every single E164 in the country coupled with a underlying identifier for routing/pathing? I see landline networks use 8 digit UAN codes for that purpose, which I assume are segmented per vendor.

For what Johnboy wants to do, ENUM(E164 over DNS) does it. It doesn't address the unreliability or un-trustworthiness of the internet but its a numbering system that ties back into DNS allowing devices to connect and or update their IP address. End result would be borked though, cause of NAT/Firewalls.

How would such devices using ONLY IPv6 play into that NAT/Firewall difficulty?

rmacm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If I move my mobile or home number to another provider, how does traffic know to flowto that provider directly?
Are they maintaining databases with every single E164 in the country coupled with a underlying identifier for routing/pathing? I see landline networks use 8 digit UAN codes for that purpose, which I assume are segmented per vendor.

Worked for Deutsche Telekom for a while and that's essentially what we did in our IMS network.

The S-CSCF made an enum query to a database. The enum database in turn made a query to another system to check if this number had been ported to another operator. If yes then a routing prefix would be sent back to the enum machine and that would inform the S-CSCF that this number needed to be routed over a PSTN or SIP based breakout to whatever operator.

Cuddlesworth

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How would such devices using ONLY IPv6 play into that NAT/Firewall difficulty?

The same. IPV6 was intended to negate the need for NAT but while IPv6 was gaining adoption, NAT became the defacto solution for fire-walling off devices from the internet. You can remove it but your then faced with the fact that devices can't be exposed to the internet in that way.

rmacm wrote: »

Worked for Deutsche Telekom for a while and that's essentially what we did in our IMS network.

The S-CSCF made an enum query to a database. The enum database in turn made a query to another system to check if this number had been ported to another operator. If yes then a routing prefix would be sent back to the enum machine and that would inform the S-CSCF that this number needed to be routed over a PSTN or SIP based breakout to whatever operator.

I suppose its the only way but its damm messy. Geographical number ranges and company specific prefixes made way more sense.

rmacm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I suppose its the only way but its damm messy. Geographical number ranges and company specific prefixes made way more sense.

Messy is an understatment the S-CSCF we were using had the BGCF bundled with it. In the live network there was something like 2 Million entries in the BGCF Tables (when I left, it's probably grown by now). Someone had to write extra software just to manipulate the tables.

EdgeCase

Big old public networks like OpenEir still contain a lot of nearly obsolete TDM switching technology and are only transitioning towards IMS for PSTN/ISDN replacement.

I know Eir made some significant investments in an Ericsson's TSS/IMS platform to replace their AXE switches at 'tertiary level' and for international gateways and so on, but AFAIK (and it may have changed), the majority (if not all) of the PSTN/ISDN was definitely still running on Ericsson AXE and Alcatel E10 switching which is all TDM-based a couple of years ago.

They're beginning to encourage customers on FTTC/H to move over to VoIP based solutions using the ATA in the modem/ home gateway to provide PSTN-like service. I would assume that once they've a significant number of customers off the old PSTN infrastructure they'll begin winding it down and putting in something more modern to support the smaller % of customers who still want old-fashioned dial tone services. That kind of thing can be done very easily with modern MSANs.

Because the number portability solution was built around that kind of technology, there would still be a lot of layers and look-ups going on to get it to all work harmoniously.

There's old tech in some of the other providers' networks too.

All I would say is that the Irish solution for number portability works quite well. I've seen far worse implementations in other countries, possibly due to limitations of the TDM hardware involved, as a lot of that gear was never really designed with the idea that there would be multiple operators. We struck it relatively lucky as the two platforms TÉ chose in the 80s were relatively flexible and the vendors continued to exist and also supported them for longer and didn't pull out of TDM tech entirely. That wasn't the case in Germany and Belgium where Siemens sold off their telecoms devision and Nokia then pretty much abandoned their ESWD switching system quite a few years ago. There's a similar issue in BT's network where System X was totally orphaned when Marconi disappeared - that prompted a faster rush to VoIP behind the scenes than it did here.

There are still some weird issues like for example you can port a number out of the PSTN to a more modern platform like any VoIP provider, Virgin, Blueface etc etc but you can't actually easily port a number from VoIP to the PSTN if it never existed on it in the first place. The numbering systems are very inflexible and baked-in. You also generally can't move numbers from one physical PSTN exchange to another, whereas that's absolutely a non-issue on modern infrastructure.

So, you've got the rather ridiculous situation that if you say move house within Dublin form exchange area to exchange area, to keep your number, you'd be better porting it to Virgin, Blueface, Goldfish etc etc as Eir won't be able to carry it from exchange-to-exchange on the PSTN as the technology can't support it. That's not unique to Ireland either, seems to be a common problem in a lot of PSTNs.

In a financial sense, it probably makes more sense to let it fade away rather than an aggressive change of technology that annoys / disrupts people.

The mobile networks are also only making the move to full IMS type solutions at the moment too. So, there's still a lot of TDM stuff in the mix. You'll see when they've IMS complete when VoLTE and WiFi calling become fully available.

When everything's moved to IMS and more modern VoIP-based platforms, it all starts to become a lot more streamlined and easier.

For a whole variety of reasons, Ireland's PSTN is has actually been a bit of a laggard in that regard too, quite a few countries e.g. Belgium have already fully completed their migration away from TDM technology.

TDM in Ireland will just quietly die out over the next few years and most people won't even notice.

rmacm

EdgeCase wrote: »

I know Eir made some significant investments in an Ericsson's TSS/IMS platform to replace their AXE switches at 'tertiary level' and for international gateways and so on, but AFAIK (and it may have changed), the majority (if not all) of the PSTN/ISDN was definitely still running on Ericsson AXE and Alcatel E10 switching which is all TDM-based a couple of years ago.

Used to work for them too (Ericsson) Ericsson TSS and IMS I know well (for my sins). The AXE is capable of speaking SIP and was/is an integral part of the TSS solution believe it or not, it was a ton of misery though.

EdgeCase wrote: »

That wasn't the case in Germany and Belgium where Siemens sold off their telecoms devision and Nokia then pretty much abandoned their ESWD switching system quite a few years ago. There's a similar issue in BT's network where System X was totally orphaned when Marconi disappeared - that prompted a faster rush to VoIP behind the scenes than it did here.

We had an EWSD test system in the basement in Nürnberg. Never saw anyone touch it in the 4 years I was there but I'm fairly sure the auld fella who did nothing but stand outside smoking was kept around just for that. Good progress has been made here to switch everyone to a VoIP solution. Most residential subscribers are now VoIP either over DSL or MSAN PoTS.

The crew I work for now are a big Telekom customer and we've got a fairly hard cut off date for old stuff (middle of next year). Any ISDN or PoTS stuff we have needs to be migrated to an IP based connection.

EdgeCase

I know the Alcatel E10 switches also spoke SIP too in their later versions.
There was an upgrade path to "1000 MM E10" that brought VoIP capability into them in the early 2000s. I have no idea if Eir kept their fleet of them up-to-date, but there was definitely a pathway towards all-IP networking and it was used in France.

AFAIK, you can basically replace the big local switches with IMS from Ericsson or Alcatel (Now Nokia) and morph their local concentrators into being the edge layer for an VoIP softswitch.

Given that all the operators except Sky put VoIP ATAs into their modem/router/gateway devices, I would assume the migration to VoIP for VDSL customers here will be very fast and there are a lot of them.

There’s no hard cutoff date here as yet for TDM access. I’d say it will be a fade out rather than a hard end date.

I've heard that Germany, unusually, didn't make much use of carrier pre select on the PSTN, so VDSL was sold with VoIP not with POTS access like here. I'm not sure if that was to wind down the PSTN system or did to technical limitations or regulatory limitations?

Eir seems to now sell NGA (VDSL or FTTC) with VoIP now rather than POTS. Vodafone and Digiweb had been doing that for some time already, Virgin is totally VoIP and the only one that seems to have no VoBB solution is Sky. Their home gateways don't contain any VoIP gear.

I know Vodafone automatically migrated (but didn't force) people to their VoIP service in place of POTS. Eir seems to be just selling theirs unless you specifically object to it.

Marlow

EdgeCase wrote: »

So there’s a lot of information needed much like the way a URL refers to an IP address when it’s looked up on DNS servers.

DNS records tell you, where to send VoIP calls directly. That has to be a server of course. So the calling phone can in theory look that up directly.

domain.ie = _sip._tcp.domain.ie SRV 5060 voip.domain.ie

If i then dialed marlow@domain.ie , my phone would look this up on DNS, connect to voip.domain.ie on tcp port 5060 and let the server determine to ring my phone and connect the call.

The problem for said server is the ever lasting attacks on it. And that makes operating an open (to the world) sip server a real issue.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I’ve actually had the weird scenario where a UK mobile network was routing traffic into Viber. So when you called an Irish 087 number for example, if the number was registered with viber, the uk mobile network’s switches identified that and sent the traffic to the viber network instead of the PSTN, so viber rang on the app, not the phone. There was no viber app installed at the callers side.

It meant they weren’t paying termination charges if they could dump the call into viber and out of the PSTN.

That is as such not a bad idea ... IF ! there is a viber app on the recipients side that is reacting to the call. In a proper dialplan it should either ring both viber and PSTN (and then it's bonus, if the call gets taken on viber) or it should try viber first, then revert to PSTN.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If I move my mobile or home number to another provider, how does traffic know to flowto that provider directly?

In theory, there is a database with Comreg, that all the providers should use and update with who has what number. That's where the providers are supposed to look up and route the call.

In reality a lax and lazy approach has been taken for years, that any number you can't look up and that isn't local to you, you'll just bounce back to OpenEIR. They've not complained about that either, because they make money of every call.

There is a bit pressure from Comreg again, that the comreg database needs to be updated and used.

The PSTN market does not change radically. Ever. And certainly not fast. Also ...

in regards to phone numbers and porting: there are still loads of unlaunched exchanges that have zero broadband. Not even ADSL1. Lines on the exchanges are also not indexed in the more recent way (by ard) ... nevermind matched to an eircode (as with FTTH lines).

It's going to take a long long long time before we can shut down the last analogue exchange. And until then, we will be stuck with traditional phone numbering. Never mind changing peoples behavior.

/M

Marlow

EdgeCase wrote: »

So, you've got the rather ridiculous situation that if you say move house within Dublin form exchange area to exchange area, to keep your number, you'd be better porting it to Virgin, Blueface, Goldfish etc etc as Eir won't be able to carry it from exchange-to-exchange on the PSTN as the technology can't support it. That's not unique to Ireland either, seems to be a common problem in a lot of PSTNs.

It's a non-issue. Basically, the core is modern now. Has to be, otherwise we would have zero number porting.

So, if the telco was willing, the problem would be solved by porting your number to the core database and then mapped onto a virtual number on the exchange you are moving to.

Basically a call-forward and a reverse mapping to show the correct CLI.

The issue is not technology and it's age. The issue is willingness.

/M

EdgeCase

Well they do have a tendency to find the lowest common denominator in terms of what the technology can do and then set that as the standard and tie themselves into procedural knots.

rogue-entity

EdgeCase wrote: »

We're badly missing a non-geographical landline code that doesn't charge at some weird rate. A lot of people no longer necessarily need or want a number tied to one particular area / exchange.

0818 was supposed to do that but it doesn't quite work as mobile and landline operators charge a fortune to call it.

Did they not introduce 076 for that? Part of the reason some Public Services use 076-1 numbers was the perceived cost of 18xx numbers, particularly from mobiles.

EdgeCase wrote: »

Landlines are going to go the way of fax machines and payphones. I'd argue in favour of allocating new landlines with a code like 033 and allowing people to migrate their landline services to non-geographic codes, perhaps giving them an incentive to do so.

Norway solved this problem by scrapping area codes completely, all numbers are 8 digits without any prefixes.

Wasn't it Comreg policy to require allocation of numbers within their "minimum areas" to addresses in those areas? And if there was a shortage, to expand the subscriber number to 7 digits?

Marlow

rogue-entity wrote: »

Norway solved this problem by scrapping area codes completely, all numbers are 8 digits without any prefixes.

Denmark actually did that before Norway .. when I was a child .. so some like 30 years ago.

/M

rogue-entity

Marlow wrote: »

Denmark actually did that before Norway .. when I was a child .. so some like 30 years ago.

/M

I wonder if that's where NKom got the idea, either way, I don't expect us to follow that path.

It would have been nice if Comreg didn't abandon ENUM and allowed VoIP providers to register numbers they offer to their customers. There would still be a central authority that oversees '353' but I can't see incumbents ever wanting that on their turf.

EdgeCase

France Telecom did that in the 1980s too, but they weren't really gone, rather the numbers just include the area code.
The mistake they made in France was they only allocated 8-digits to Paris and then digits to the rest of France! So, it ran out of numbers and they ended up having to add two more digits in the early 2000s.

Basically you'd something like: Bordeaux 99 99 99 would have originally been something like (56) 99.99.99

That became 56.99.99.99 and all numbers are made uniformly xx.xx.xx.xx

Then when they (unsurprisingly) ran out of numbers, they added regional 'prefixes' (but you have to always dial them) so it became 05.56.99.99.99. They actually now look more like Irish numbers as you've logically laid out regional codes much like here.

I also vaguely remember the old cumbersome mess for dealing with Paris vs 'down the country' that existed until the early 2000s.

If you wanted to call Paris, you had to dial 16 and then you got a second dial tone, then 1 and the 8-digit Paris number.
To get "down the country" from Paris 16+peasant's number.

You also had the 'routing tone' when you dialled numbers, as the IN system was quite slow at doing some look ups on the databases and it would literally go 'bebebebebe' for about 3 seconds before the number rang out. I think that was the same in the areas of Ireland that use French Alcatel exchanges until they were updated to their current versions.

The still UK has utterly bonkers area codes because they were originally alphanumeric codes that represented the first letters of the town. That's why their codes make absolutely no logical sense anymore (01938) could be 400 miles away from (01938) In the past you would dial something like 0BE2 (0232) for BElfast and so on. They ran out of letters so they never made any sense anyway.

In general, fixed-length numbering was something that was necessary/desirable when switching systems were relatively simple - old crossbar exchanges and even early digital systems needed a lot of logic in the numbers. Whereas, modern switching systems don't as there's a level of intelligence in the network.

So, in general the Irish numbering system is unlikely to change, as it would be hugely disruptive to renumber the whole country for absolutely no gain.

I read an article on this once upon a time, and what surprised me was that international calling into Ireland was done through the UK until 1974. There was no international gateway exchanges installed here until then and calls were all manually processed. Even as late as 1979, there were only about 500-odd lines (about 400 to the UK and about 100 to Paris) to call abroad!

The national network was automated using mostly Ericsson crossbars from 1957 onwards and actually supported automatic long distance calling before the UK. Afaik, you could call Ireland from the UK directly using special area codes, but there was no way of actually addressing the Irish automatic network from outside the UK until 1974! All calls would have been placed via the operator.

Amazing when you think how much of a backwater we were in those days.

In general, the Irish setup for numbering is OK though. There are far more confusing systems in use in a lot of places.

Marlow

You're actually a bit wrong there.

Fixed length number makes dialing a blizz. Because first of all, your phone doesn't wander off dialing the number if you're slow dialing it.

Take the example Denmark/Norway: it knows, that if your number doesn't start with 00 or 10, then it's going to be 8 digits. So after 8 digits are entered, it dials instantly .. the whole block.

Variable length numbers also have an advantage. Like in Germany, when you ordered ISDN in P-t-P configuration (that's a PABX connection), you'd have an infinite amount of numbers, disregardless of you just having 2 lines (or more).

That's because you could hang any amount of digits behind your number and it would send them through.

Made for some real interesting ways of implementing things.

While with a fixed block, the Telco made more money assigning you more numbers.

In Ireland it's just both: the messy dialplan with no sense how long the number is ... it varies for each county ... and still having to pay for each assigned prefix.

/M

EdgeCase

Well, yeah it's handy in some ways but it's very inflexible.

The PSTN is quite sophisticated in how it handles dialling though compared to most ATAs.

When you start dialling the number, the local exchange is already analysing it in real time. So, it knows if you dial 021 that it is expecting to get another 7 digits before it completes the call, or 01 + 7. It will wait something like 15 or 20 seconds before dumping the connection if there aren't enough digits.

Also if you dial say 021 999 8 and no such number exists, it will not even go as far as sending the call. It already knows that's invalid and you'll get a tone/announcement before you even key the whole number. So, any errors are actually caught locally before they even get sent beyond that exchange.

With ATAs, you're really trying to mimic most of that behaviour with a dial plan as they're missing a 'send' button like a mobile. With a lot of VoIP phones, you can dial "en bloc" like a mobile i.e. key the number, press 'dial' or pick a line or whatever.

Most ATAs in use, tend to use # as 'send'. Try dealing a number on a Virgin line for example and hitting # and it will complete the call instantly. Otherwise, it's just relying on a crude 3 or 4 second time out to know you've stopped.

Marlow

That behavior isn't only limited to ATAs. It also happens on switch-boards and PABX systems.

It goes way further back. ANd it's a problem way further back.

/M

rogue-entity

EdgeCase wrote: »

So, in general the Irish numbering system is unlikely to change, as it would be hugely disruptive to renumber the whole country for absolutely no gain.

Still, we never ended up with the German trend of just making new numbers longer while leaving old shorter numbers grandfathered in.

I wonder if using 052 numbers for 0504 is a precursor to merging 0504 into the 052 area, a way of staving off shortages or just a limitation of the infrastructure.

EdgeCase

There were various ways of doing it in the older tech, but in general in the system here it was all about analysing the number as it was dialled.

The old system didn't care what the number length was as the route was literally contained within the number. Even when technology moved on, that concept was largely retained and then you added more and more intelligence.

When VoIP ATAs and PBXs don't have access to the databases behind it, there's no way they can do anything other than implement a complex dial plan or use en bloc dialling like mobiles, or a time out as send.

The most likely explanation for the German setup was that the very old numbers were allocated on something like Siemens "Rotary" switches, a very old form of step-by-step switching. It didn't have any ability to perform number analysis at all, so you would have had to physically rebuild the exchange to change the numbers as each digit literally moved a mechanical component.

Those likely coexisted with digital switching for a time in the 80s / early 90s.

In Ireland, there was a big rollout of digital switching planned in about 1979 with the first of them going live in 1981. They co-existed with various eras of analogue crossbar switching, but it was generally 'modern' stuff form the 1970s, not prehistoric technology and it was largely able to do a lot of routing and integration with digital switching and computerisation.

We did have periods of time when Dublin and Cork had mixtures of 6 and 7 digit numbers as they were going through changes. The system was always capable of handling that but it was just way way easier to have them the same length.

rogue-entity

Marlow wrote: »

Variable length numbers also have an advantage. Like in Germany, when you ordered ISDN in P-t-P configuration (that's a PABX connection), you'd have an infinite amount of numbers, disregardless of you just having 2 lines (or more).

That's because you could hang any amount of digits behind your number and it would send them through.

I wonder if that's what allowed for things like this:

+49 681 302-0, +49 681 302-2221 and so on.

On the note about fixed digits, it also makes configuring dialling rules for PABXs quite easy, you know any number you dial in Norway/Denmark or the UK/US will be 8 or 10 digits, after the country code. We might get there, eventually, if Comreg just lengthens numbers in places like Galway or Yoghal to 7 digits (and they might consider splitting 01 into separate codes too).

Marlow

EdgeCase wrote: »

There were various ways of doing it in the older tech, but in general in the system here it was all about analysing the number as it was dialled.

The old system didn't care what the number length was as the route was literally contained within the number. Even when technology moved on, that concept was largely retained and then you added more and more intelligence.

When VoIP ATAs and PBXs don't have access to the databases behind it, there's no way they can do anything other than implement a complex dial plan or use en bloc dialling like mobiles, or a time out as send.

Where the whole routing as you dial process got broken first is in ISDN systems. While those systems should be able to pass things through to the telco switch etc., some manufacturers took a serious lazy approach and you ended up only being able to dial 'en block'.

/M