1、ETSI TR 1 O1 697 VI.I.I (1999-07) Technical Report Number Portability Task Force (NPTF); Guidance on choice of network solutions for service provider portability for geographic and non-geographic numbers STD.ETS1 TR LOL b77-ENGL 1777 m 3400855 042238b 51T = 2 ETSI TR 1 O1 697 V1.l.l (1 999-07) Refer
2、ence DTWNA-020071 (fpOOOiCS.PDF) Keywords network, portability ETSI Postal address F-O6921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex - FRANCE Office address 650 Route des Lucioles - Sophia Antipolis Valbonne - FRANCE Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 O0 Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16 Siret No 348 623 562 00017 NAF 742 C Association but no
3、n lucratif enregistre A la Sous-Prfecture de Grasse (06) No 7803188 Internet secretariat etsi.fr Individual copies of this ETSI deliverable can be downloaded from http:i/www.etsi.org If you find errors in the present document, send your comment to: editoretsi.fr Copyright Notification No part may be
4、 reproduced except as authorized by written permission. The copyright and the foregoing restriction extend to reproduction in all media. O European Telecommunications Standards Institute 1999. Ail rights reserved. STD-ETSI TR LO1 b97-ENGL 1799 W 3400855 0422387 45b m 3 ETSI TR 101 697 Vl.l.1 (199947
5、) Contents intellectual Property Rights 4 Foreword 4 Introduction 4 1 2 3 4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 7 7.1 7.2 8 Scope 5 References 5 Abbreviations . 5 Possible Number Portability Solutions 6 Appropriateness of Number Portability solutions 6 Architecture . 7 Transportation of the Rout
6、eing Number 7 Entity addressed by Routeing Number 7 Further Considerations . 8 Number portability options that should not be used 8 Routeing Number doesnt identify anything but is carried . 8 Routeing Number identifies something when it is not carried . 8 Information sent back by Donor network is to
7、 be consistent . 9 Donor exchange (network) should only respond once - OR Essential, or potentially Essential, IPRs notified to ETSI in respect of ETSI standards”, which is available free of charge from the ETSI Secretariat. Latest updates are available on the ETSI Web server (http:/www.etsi.org/ipr
8、). Pursuant to the ETSI iPR Policy, no investigation, including IPR searches, has been carried out by ETSI. No guarantee can be given as to the existence of other IPRs not referenced in SR O00 314 (or the updates on the ETSI Web server) which are, or may be, or may become, essential to the present d
9、ocument. Foreword This Technical Reporte (TR) has been produced by ETSI Technical Committee Services Protocol for Advanced Networks (SPAN). Introduction The ETSI Number Portability Task Force (“TF) has created a series of technical reports describing various aspects of number portability. These incl
10、ude High Level Service Description for Number Portability TR 101 119 i, High level architectures for number portability TR 101 118 2 and Numbering and addressing for number portability TR 101 122 3. Whilst these documents provide considerable technical information, including many pro and con discuss
11、ions, they do not provide specific guidance concerning use in Europe. Since there are a large number of possible implementation combinations contained in the technical reports, multi vendor interoperability and interconnections between network operators will be difficult without additional direction
12、. The present document focuses on interfaces between networks. Issues within a network are not specifically addressed, although there are some notes concerning information internal to a network. STD-ETSI TR 101 b97-ENGL 1999 3400855 0422389 229 m 5 ETSI TR i01 697 Vi .i .i (199947) 1 Scope The prese
13、nt document is to analyse the interrelationships of the various technical components involved in providing service provider number portability and provide guidance on use in Europe between networks. NOTE: For the purpose of the present document, the term “Service Provider Number Portability“ is used
14、 to describe Service Provider Portability for geographic and non-geographic numbers. 2 References The following documents contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions of the present document. References are either specific (identified by date of publication, editio
15、n number, version number, etc.) or non-specific. For a specific reference, subsequent revisions do not apply. For a non-specific reference, the latest version applies. A non-specific reference to an ETS shall also be taken to refer to later versions published as an EN with the same number. 111 Pl TR
16、 101 119: “Network Aspects (NA); High level description of number portability“. TR 101 118: “Network Aspects (NA); High Level Network Architecture and Solutions to support Number Portability“. TR 101 122: “Network Aspects (NA); Numbering and Addressing for Number Portability“. i31 3 Abbreviations Fo
17、r the purposes of the present document, the following abbreviations apply: ACQ Ccat DB Exch IN NA NFTF NTP None OR POI-“et POI-RNet Psep QoR Rnet Sep All Call Query Concatenated DropB ac k Recipient exchange Intelligent Network Network Aspects Number Portability Task Force Network Termination Point
18、No routeing number used Onward Routeing Point of interconnection -Next network Point of interconnection - Recipient Network Partially separated Query on Release Recipient network Separated ETSI STD-ETSI TR LOL b97-ENGL I999 II 3400855 0422390 T40 6 ETSI TR 101 697 V1.l.l (1999-07) 4 Possible Number
19、Portability Solutions Contained within the three technical reports detailed in clause 2, there are three technical components that are. to be included in any solution (application) for service provider number portability: 1) the architecture being used; 2) the method of transporting a routeing numbe
20、r; 3) the entity addressed by the routeing number. Architectures: There are four architectures described in the technical reports: 1) Onward Routeing (OR); 2) Ali Call Query (ACQ); 3) Query on Release (QoR); 4) Dropback (DB). Transport of routeing number: There are four transport methods described:
21、1) Concatenated (Ccat); 2) Separated (Sep); 3) Partially separated (Psep); 4) No routeing number used (None). NOTE 1: In TR 101 122 3 there was an option of Routeing Number only. This has similar characteristics to a NTP and hence it has been omitted as a specific item from the present document. Add
22、ressed entity: There are six possible entities identified by the routeing number: i) Network Termination Point (NTP); 2) Recipient exchange (Exch); 3) Point of interconnection - Recipient Network (POI-RNet); 4) Point of interconnection -Next network (POI-“et); 5) Recipient network (Rnet); 6) No rout
23、eing number. (None). NOTE 2: In some solutions more than one entity may be addressed as the call transits the network. NOTE 3: For the purposes of the present document, POI-NNet refers to an address of a point of interconnection exiting the serving network while POI-RNet refers to an address of a po
24、int of interconnection entering the recipient network. If there is no transit network involved, these could be the same point. The above creates a three dimensional matrix of 4x46 or 96 possible ways to implement service provider number portability. 5 Appropriateness of Number Portability solutions
25、Although the previous clause identified a number of options for choice of architecture, transportation of the routeing number and entity to be addressed by the routeing number, there are a number of these possibilities which are either completely inappropriate, or appropriate only under certain circ
26、umstances. This clause considers which of the possibilities are appropriate. ETSI STDmETSI TR 303 b97-ENGL 1999 3400855 0422393 987 5.1 7 ETSI TR 101 697V1.1.1 (1999-07) Arch i tect u re None of the architectures identified are impracticable; however, the options could be viewed as more or less appr
27、opriate dependant upon whether a short or long term solution is being devised. Onward Routeing is best considered as a short to medium term solution, as it can be implemented relatively quickly using existing technologies and network architectures. However, it is inappropriate where the level of tra
28、ffic to ported numbers becomes a significant proportion of total traffic, as all of this traffic will route via the donor network. Conversely, All Call Query would typically be a longer term solution, as it implies either exchange modifications to hold a database of all ported numbers within the dom
29、ain, or implementation of IN technologies across all exchangees. Further, the administrative procedures will take longer to establish, as multi-lateral agreements on exchange of information about ported numbers are. required, rather than the bilateral agreements possible for onward routeing. However
30、, where traffic levels to ported numbers are high, the architecture is appropriate as calls will be routed in the most efficient manner, not involving the donor. Care are to be taken in ACQ implementations where the serving exchange may not be able to determine the end of dialed digits. A migration
31、path from OR to ACQ is possible without modifications to the signalling system and therefore ACQ and OR can Co-exist. Dropback and Query on Release architectures fall between Onward Routeing and Ail Call Query, in that they are best suited to where there is a moderate level of traffic to ported numb
32、ers. Both options avoid calls routeing via the donor network hence avoid inefficient routeing, but both stili involve the donor network in processing of the calls. Query on Release imposes less load on the donor network, but does so at the expense of requiring a database and multilateral agreements
33、as in the All Call Query option. Dropback has the advantage of not requiring such a database, but imposes the responsibility on the donor to maintain records of where calls are ported. 5.2 Transportation of the Routeing Number Four options have been identified, including not transporting any routein
34、g number. Concatenating the routeing number with the destination number is seen as a good short term solution, as it may require little or no development to signalling systems. Some form of indication that the contents of the signalling field is a concatenated number is required. This may be a speci
35、al nature of address value, or an unused value of the most significant numbering digit. However, the later is potentially wasteful with regard to numbering resources. Separated fields for carrying the routeing number and directory number is seen as a better long term solution as it maintains the dis
36、tinction between the two functions of addressing and numbering and thus allows independent evolution of these items. However, it requires development of the signalling system. Partially separated addressing provides no benefit beyond that for separated addressing. In fact it may complicate the situa
37、tion by mixing addressing and naming in one parameter. This option is therefore not recommended. Passing no routeing number has the advantage that (at the network boundary at least) there is no need for extra signalling fields to carry routeing numbers and therefore requires no development to the si
38、gnalling system. 5.3 Entity addressed by Routeing Number Six options have been identified for the entity to be addressed by the routeing number, including not actually having a routeing number. In carrying out this analysis, it is important to recognize that what is being considered is the Routeing
39、Number used at network interfaces, not that used internally to a network. Addressing the NTP with the routeing number would be highly problematic. This would imply one routeing number for each number ported (or at least each customer). It also requires additional administrative procedures, and would
40、 result in costly changes to routeing numbers whenever any network configuration resulted in a customer connection being changed. This option is therefore not recommended. Addressing the Exch has the advantage that it provides sufficient information to route the call to the ported customer, meaning
41、that there is no need to carry out subsequent database lookups to route the call. Reconfigurations of the recipient network may require changes to routeing numbers. ETSI STD-ETSI TR LO1 b97-ENGL 1999 = 3400855 0422392 813 = a ETSI TR 101 697 V1.l.l (1999-07) Addressing the POI-RNet has two possible
42、interpretations: A specific trunk group between two specific exchanges; or the address of a transit node serving a geographic area. The first interpretation leads to many complexities in data base administration and traffic handling in a multi operator environment and are to be eliminated as a possi
43、ble interpretation. The second interpretation is feasible and could help optimize call routeing in some situations. One possible example is a transit node that serves several small exchanges. This option has the disadvantage that some recipient network reconfigurations may require changes to routein
44、g numbers. Addressing the POI-NNet seemingly serves no purpose; as the call is passed to a network, it is clear that this are to be the next network in the call path to the recipient network, so providing a routeing number to confirm this does not achieve anything above passing no routeing number. T
45、his option is therefore not recommended. Addressing the Rnet has the advantage that network operators do not need extensive knowledge of the internai configuration of the recipient network. The routeing number is sufficient to route the call as far as the recipient network. However, identification o
46、f the recipient network may not be sufficient for other operators to optimally route the call, because if the recipient network is large, there may be many routes to it, but the operator may have no alternative but to hand-over the call at the nearest Point of Interconnection. The recipient network
47、will need to examine the directory number digits to determine how to complete the call. This may require a further data base query. Passing no routeing number (None) has the advantage that each network operator requires little information on the internal configuration of other networks. However, thi
48、s approach does have the disadvantage that multiple database queries will be required within a given call path, as each network will have to carry out such checks in order to determine how to route the call. This option is therefore only suited to all call query architectures, or combined architectu
49、res (see clause 7). 5.4 Further Considerations Based on the above discussion, several of the possible technical parameters are not recommended. Removing these options from consideration leaves a matrix of: - - - four architectures (OR, ACQ, QoR, three means of transporting routeing numbers (Ccat, Sep, four entities to be addressed by routeing numbers (Exch, POI-bet, Rnet 3,6,9, 15 18,21,27,30,33,39,42,45. 6.2 Routeing Number doesnt identify anything but is carried If the routeing number is said not to identify anything, there is no point in carrying it. It therefore means
