VoIP Mailing List Archives
Mailing list archives for the VoIP community |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bill at cosi.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
 |
|
Miles Scruggs wrote: | Quote: | | Quote: | On May 11, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
| Quote: | Since when did the big boys not eventually get what they want from the
government?
| Quote: | On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Alex Balashov
| Quote: | Bill Michaelson wrote:
| Quote: | Miles Scruggs wrote:
| Quote: | `
Welcome to IP baby, you really can't lock it down using the
traditional methods. As much as you would like to think that the
entity converting the IP to PSTN should/would/could/does correctly
specify the absolute correct ANI/CID it is quite the opposite on a
large scale. Unless someone dreams up a new way to enforce or
efficiently verify CID/ANI and the big boys actually implement
it this
isn't likely to change.
|
Digital signatures? a la RSA?
|
Clever, agile, and very ingenious and all-around open-source
affirmative
of you. But you might have missed the "big boys actually
implement it"
part. 
|
Well a government mandate would make the "Big Boys actually
implement it."
Let me spoof NSA with DHS ANI and visa versa using WiFi and a hacked
asterisk box.
E911 was mandated and is semi functional, the government just has to
step in. They only step in when there are votes on the line or money
(and occasionally public safety, usually for PR reasons)
Thanks,
Steve Totaro
|
|
I don't get why you or anyone thinks we need a solution to this. |
|
It's a discussion of possibilities. That's all.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Since when did the big boys not eventually get what they want from the
government?
|
0 |
Why do you feel so alone? Take a breath. Relax. Now read the thread again, carefully. There are a variety of suggestions and ideas, few conclusions, and your inferences about people's positions are overblown.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Since when did the big boys not eventually get what they want from the
government?
|
1 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
beckman at angryox.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | I think you are missing the whole point here. CID and ANI are DIFFERENT.
A law concerning passing valid CID should not be passed. I have used
it as a GUID between call centers.
However, there should be a law against bogus ANI.
|
So as a VoIP provider, what exactly is the ANI I should set? A phone
number in the LATA in which my server is located? Any phone number I
"own" or at least control?
If a call is generated from my server as a direct result of another
incoming call, what do I set the ANI to?
A) Any phone number I control
B) A single phone number I use for all outbound calls
C) Who cares
D) The phone number (if available) that was used to originate a call to
my servers/switches
E) Something else
Based on this answer, do I need to force my DID origination partners some
sort of letter to force them to pass some sort of "valid" ANI that may or
may not be different to the CLID?
The best reason for ANI spoofing with a different CLID is for billing. If
I can set the ANI to any number, or even a number I own, in the LATA to
which I am terminating the call, I can get the lowest rates, while still
setting CLID to something meaningful to the terminating party.
If we can exploit this, and it's not illegal, maybe it will cause the
incumbents to finally give up this inter/intralata pricing crap, get their
act together and make all our lives a bit more simple.
This whole phone system is so messed up... here we all are, running VoIP
phone companies, and nobody seems to enforce, care, even know what the
proper setup is, and what the ANI should be, or that any VoIP termination
company on this list accepts or has rules on what the ANI can or cannot
be, much less that they bill on anything other than CLID.
*headache*
Beckman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy
beckman@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 11:56 -0400, Peter Beckman wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 9 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | I think you are missing the whole point here. CID and ANI are DIFFERENT.
A law concerning passing valid CID should not be passed. I have used
it as a GUID between call centers.
|
|
The law in florida, which afaik has not yet passed, the law in NJ which
again as far as I know wasnt directly related to ANI are based against
fraud. The florida one speaks specifically about fraud and the NJ one
was a conviction of someone doing fraud stuff. It is not illegal to
specify some arbitrary ANI/CLID in those places when you are the
receiving end (basically using it as a cookie of some type) or when you
have permission from the target. The florida law as stated on the news
site I read (I havent read the statute, dont care enough) makes it
illegal to spoof when you are calling random people, generally in
pursuit of other fraud. It was kinda clear on that point, meaning if
you own the receiving end you can authorize people to send anything they
want, its your choice. Just like the hacking laws let you break into
your own computers, or authorize others to legally break into them.
As for tracability, what lawmakers dont know is that there is a 3rd
number in addition to CLID/ANI that can be used, and generally is not
user settable, for tracking down fraud issues. That is the BTN, or
billing telephone number. It may be the same, but usually its different
from your CLID/ANI (even if those match). This will more often than not
be the ITSP that service was used through. Even some in the telco
industry dont know about this 3rd number and cant grasp the concept that
someone can place a call from one provider and receive it on another
using the CLID/ANI of the receiving side.
I think that some of the laws do not consider how the technology works.
For example the service like vonage or broadvoice are what most expect
voip providers to be like, concepts such as one way providers (ie you
can get pstn termination only at some providers) and the fact that some
may be reselling that service make it difficult to know what is and what
is not a valid ANI/CLID.
With vonage or broadvoice its fairly simple, you order a phone line
replacement, which includes a number, outgoing calls have that number as
the clid/ani (although some of their providers are incapable of doing
ani properly).
With the wholesale packages its much more difficult since they are not
phone line replacements. If level3 sells a wholesale package to me, and
I resell it to some itsp who resells it to another itsp, how does level3
know which ANI/CLId are valid? How do I? What about international, for
example is Amsterdam area code 312, or is it country code 31 and a city
code that starts with 2 (yeah international is generally done different,
sip doesnt really allow that in most implementations so ...)? And so
on, it creates problems in that information may not pass quickly enough
(or at all) to know the difference.
The intent as I read the florida stuff was more to slap an extra charge
onto someone rather than anything else. It doesnt lead to probable
cause in many cases since the government probably does not know how to
trace that call properly (in combination with the phone company doesnt
want to spend more money helping them, or they dont know they can) so
they dont know which provider it came in on, they dont know who really
originated the call, etc. It does let them after the fact give an extra
conviction to someone though. In some rare situations it may lead to
probable cause (thus a search warrant), it may lead to a preemptive
arrest, but odds are 99% of the cases it will be a "now that we have you
for all these other crimes we will add this one to it".
Generally offenses that are all related have to be served at the same
time, which means that it probably wont add much if any jail time to the
people who are doing it to rip someone else off, especially if they are
facing state time, when the states dont want to pay to house anyone but
do it.
Its a feel good law that, so far, does not do much. Unless I missed
when someone said the FCC is getting involved and going to do something
insane with it requiring gobs of proof to allow that ANI on that
customers profile, blah blah blah. And generally break most ITSPs since
they wont be able to immediately comply. Not to mention administrative
overhead that will raise the costs.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abalashov at evaristes...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Peter Beckman wrote:
| Quote: | If we can exploit this, and it's not illegal, maybe it will cause the
incumbents to finally give up this inter/intralata pricing crap, get their
act together and make all our lives a bit more simple.
|
I would strongly concur there.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:15:37PM -0700, Nitzan Kon wrote:
| Quote: | Third that. We don't need more regulation on VoIP - on the contrary.
|
Not trying to put any there.
But you can inject fake ANI into my SS7 network when you pry the console
cable from my cold, dead fingers.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:24:27PM -0400, Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Michaelson wrote:
Status quo until death of PSTN?
|
That is implicit in my reply a moment ago, yes.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 08:13:08PM -0400, John Scully wrote:
| Quote: | OK - A few people here have touched on the right answer, but I am going to
say it more bluntly:
No limit on ability to "spoof" outbound callerid/ANI is possible without
crippling the ability to aggregate traffic from customers. An aggregator
has zero ability to determine what PSTN numbers a customer of a customer has
right to use. You have a PBX with PSTN numbers, I have a wholesale customer
who sells you IP trunking for outbound LD. You set your switch to use the
proper ANI so people who call back some in on your PSTN lines.
Your direct "LD company" may have no switch, and your PBX may be trunked
directly to me, but I do not know who you are. So I have no one to contact
and verify ANI, the company who does know who you are has no way to verify
what ANI you send, and in any case, it is none of our business.
|
With all due respect, that's your problem.
When calls are dumped into the PSTN, they *have* to have valid ANI; too
much of the semantics of the entire remainder of the PSTN depends on it.
If that impairs the ability of some to interact with subscribers to the
PSTN, then they'll have to find another way to cope with it. If you
mean what I think you mean by "aggregators" -- intermediate carriers
who bridge traffic from smaller edge providers to the PSTN, then your
responsiblity is to require that of your edge providers by contracts
with teeth.
But there has to be an ANI, and it has to point somewhere valid -- even
if it's the edge provider itself as proxy for the end sub.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 15:43 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | When calls are dumped into the PSTN, they *have* to have valid ANI; too
much of the semantics of the entire remainder of the PSTN depends on it.
|
That is not true, ANI is not used for routing or billing of the call,
the BTN (billing telephone number) is used for billing. Now some
carriers use the ANI for intercarrier compensation, but that is not
something that matters on the PSTN itself, and to that end phantom
traffic can exist even with valid ANIs (traffic that is enough to
complete the call but not enough to properly bill carriers for that
call).
| Quote: |
But there has to be an ANI, and it has to point somewhere valid -- even
if it's the edge provider itself as proxy for the end sub.
|
Case and point the federal government will often send calls out onto the
pstn with a ani and caller id of 0000000000, which is less than valid.
This disproves assertions that it has to point somewhere valid.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faxguy at howardsilvan...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:24:27PM -0400, Alex Balashov wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Michaelson wrote:
Status quo until death of PSTN?
|
That is implicit in my reply a moment ago, yes.
|
Unfortunately, the PSTN cannot be fully killed off as its full
functionality has not been fully duplicated/replaced by alternatives.
So, I do not see said death occurring at the hands of any currently-used
technology.
Thanks,
Lee.
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:56:06AM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 9 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | I think you are missing the whole point here. CID and ANI are DIFFERENT.
A law concerning passing valid CID should not be passed. I have used
it as a GUID between call centers.
However, there should be a law against bogus ANI.
|
So as a VoIP provider, what exactly is the ANI I should set? A phone
number in the LATA in which my server is located? Any phone number I
"own" or at least control?
|
If the subscriber for whom you're transiting the call to the PSTN has a
dialable DN for that line, then you should use that number. If it's a
trunk-group type facility, any number which can be called to reach that
trunk group. If the particular facility is outbound only, any number
that addresses an inbound facility billed to the same customer,
preferably at the same physical location.
If the facility is entirely outbound-only, then you should probably
find out where telcos get their assignments of non-dialable BTNs for
their own such facilities, and get some.
| Quote: | If a call is generated from my server as a direct result of another
incoming call, what do I set the ANI to?
A) Any phone number I control
B) A single phone number I use for all outbound calls
C) Who cares
D) The phone number (if available) that was used to originate a call to
my servers/switches
E) Something else
|
If you're acting as a transit switch, then I would think you should
pass along the ANI appropriate to the originating station. If you're a
smart conference bridge, or something like that, which generates
calls which are related, but not actually just an extension of the same
call, then some appropriate ANI assigned to the switch/adjunct itself.
| Quote: | The best reason for ANI spoofing with a different CLID is for billing. If
I can set the ANI to any number, or even a number I own, in the LATA to
which I am terminating the call, I can get the lowest rates, while still
setting CLID to something meaningful to the terminating party.
If we can exploit this, and it's not illegal, maybe it will cause the
incumbents to finally give up this inter/intralata pricing crap, get their
act together and make all our lives a bit more simple.
|
Possibly. That doesn't mean that, from an engineering standpoint, I
have to approve, knowing something about the assumptions the PSTN makes
of a transported ANI.
| Quote: | This whole phone system is so messed up... here we all are, running VoIP
phone companies, and nobody seems to enforce, care, even know what the
proper setup is, and what the ANI should be, or that any VoIP termination
company on this list accepts or has rules on what the ANI can or cannot
be, much less that they bill on anything other than CLID.
|
Yup. There are *lots* of people setting up machines and companies to
interact with the traditional PSTN who have never heard of AMA, or SS7,
or LSSGR (much less *read* all 14 volumes and 20,000-odd pages of
it)... and there's a *reason* why the major IXCs restrict direct access
to their SS7 routing control networks.
I fully expect there to be a shakeout; I'm a bit surprised it hasn't
happened already...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
remember that the ani should be the customer, many banks use this for
authentication purposes (for example when you get a new credit/debit
card). This was one issue vonage had because they set caller id but the
ani was of their number and it causes a lot of consumer frustration.
There are legit reasons to set the ani to the customer and not the
provider, especially for those that want to use it as a pots line
replacement service.
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:09 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:56:06AM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 9 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | However, there should be a law against bogus ANI.
|
So as a VoIP provider, what exactly is the ANI I should set? A phone
number in the LATA in which my server is located? Any phone number I
"own" or at least control?
|
If the subscriber for whom you're transiting the call to the PSTN has a
dialable DN for that line, then you should use that number. If it's a
trunk-group type facility, any number which can be called to reach that
trunk group. If the particular facility is outbound only, any number
that addresses an inbound facility billed to the same customer,
preferably at the same physical location.
|
ideally it would be the number that the customer chooses that they have
proven is theirs. However this becomes harder when you get resellers of
resellers. You also have to have a database, which is checked for each
and every call to see if that customer is allowed to dial out with that
ani. This increases the switching cost to set up the call, increases
the overall costs in terms of maintaining that database, and is not
infallable (a customer may have the number one day and not the next).
If it boils down to a fine, you can have a indemnify and hold harmless
clause but for those to really be effective you have to have the person
in a jurisdiction where they can be served and be forced to comply,
which makes international customers difficult, it also means that they
have to have enough to actually pay, if they dont you are still on the
hook for the fine.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:57:08PM +0200, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 15:43 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | When calls are dumped into the PSTN, they *have* to have valid ANI; too
much of the semantics of the entire remainder of the PSTN depends on it.
|
That is not true, ANI is not used for routing or billing of the call,
the BTN (billing telephone number) is used for billing. Now some
carriers use the ANI for intercarrier compensation, but that is not
something that matters on the PSTN itself, and to that end phantom
traffic can exist even with valid ANIs (traffic that is enough to
complete the call but not enough to properly bill carriers for that
call).
|
Unless I'm very much mistaken, ANI is a *delivery method*. BTN is a
*label for a subscriber service* which is *delivered via* ANI.
So your assertion doesn't actually make a lot of sense.
If I am, let us say, an INWATS subscriber who is paying the bills for
calls delivered to me by an IXC, then what I get is indeed the BTN for
each call, and *how I get it* is via ANI.
It's more important, of course, if I'm a transit IXC, moving a call
from one LEC to another: What I get had *better* be a Billing Telephone
Number, because that's what I'm gonna do with it: I'm gonna bill it.
| Quote: | | Quote: | But there has to be an ANI, and it has to point somewhere valid -- even
if it's the edge provider itself as proxy for the end sub.
|
???
|
I don't see that my assertion there was at all difficult to understand.
| Quote: | Case and point the federal government will often send calls out onto the
pstn with a ani and caller id of 0000000000, which is less than valid.
This disproves assertions that it has to point somewhere valid.
|
Nope, it proves that US federal government agencies often break (or,
less often, are exempt from) lots of laws and regulations, often to the
detriment of precisely the people those laws were designed to protect.
And the common usage is "case in point"
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:19:55PM +0200, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
| Quote: | There are legit reasons to set the ani to the customer and not the
provider, especially for those that want to use it as a pots line
replacement service.
|
Certainly, and I've (explicitly) never suggested any differently.
| Quote: | On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:09 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:56:06AM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 9 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | However, there should be a law against bogus ANI.
|
So as a VoIP provider, what exactly is the ANI I should set? A phone
number in the LATA in which my server is located? Any phone number I
"own" or at least control?
|
If the subscriber for whom you're transiting the call to the PSTN has a
dialable DN for that line, then you should use that number. If it's a
trunk-group type facility, any number which can be called to reach that
trunk group. If the particular facility is outbound only, any number
that addresses an inbound facility billed to the same customer,
preferably at the same physical location.
|
ideally it would be the number that the customer chooses that they have
proven is theirs. However this becomes harder when you get resellers of
resellers. You also have to have a database, which is checked for each
and every call to see if that customer is allowed to dial out with that
ani. This increases the switching cost to set up the call, increases
the overall costs in terms of maintaining that database, and is not
infallable (a customer may have the number one day and not the next).
|
As I noted, I'm perfectly happy to let aggregators do it by contract;
the hammer that will fall on them is big enough that I don't think they
need to validate a second (or third) time.
| Quote: | If it boils down to a fine, you can have a indemnify and hold harmless
clause but for those to really be effective you have to have the person
in a jurisdiction where they can be served and be forced to comply,
which makes international customers difficult, it also means that they
have to have enough to actually pay, if they dont you are still on the
hook for the fine.
|
Yup. Things are a bit too wild and wooly for me in that market space
just now anyway; I don't want them pulling the entire PSTN over on top
of themselves (and me).
It ain't what it was in 1978, but it's still better than most.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:25 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:57:08PM +0200, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 15:43 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | When calls are dumped into the PSTN, they *have* to have valid ANI; too
much of the semantics of the entire remainder of the PSTN depends on it.
|
That is not true, ANI is not used for routing or billing of the call,
the BTN (billing telephone number) is used for billing. Now some
carriers use the ANI for intercarrier compensation, but that is not
something that matters on the PSTN itself, and to that end phantom
traffic can exist even with valid ANIs (traffic that is enough to
complete the call but not enough to properly bill carriers for that
call).
|
Unless I'm very much mistaken, ANI is a *delivery method*. BTN is a
*label for a subscriber service* which is *delivered via* ANI.
|
ANI is an informational element, how that is transmitted would rely on
the delivery method.
| Quote: | So your assertion doesn't actually make a lot of sense.
|
It makes sense if you properly understand that ANI is information, a
phone number for example, and not a delivery method, sip for example.
| Quote: | If I am, let us say, an INWATS subscriber who is paying the bills for
calls delivered to me by an IXC, then what I get is indeed the BTN for
each call, and *how I get it* is via ANI.
|
ani and btn can be different and in some instances they are. As a
result if you are getting ANI informational elements you may or may not
be getting the BTN.
| Quote: | It's more important, of course, if I'm a transit IXC, moving a call
from one LEC to another: What I get had *better* be a Billing Telephone
Number, because that's what I'm gonna do with it: I'm gonna bill it.
|
well you also get other bits of information, after all the BTN is just
an informational element of the call. That information may be the ani,
callerid number (sometimes name in some circumstances, that is much more
rare at the call setup stage, normally name is a query made by the
terminating company).
| Quote: |
I don't see that my assertion there was at all difficult to understand.
|
no its not difficult to understand, its just based on flawed information
as a result its not accurate. ANI is not a delivery method, its an
informational element. That little difference changes a lot in what you
claimed, such as below.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Case and point the federal government will often send calls out onto the
pstn with a ani and caller id of 0000000000, which is less than valid.
This disproves assertions that it has to point somewhere valid.
|
Nope, it proves that US federal government agencies often break (or,
less often, are exempt from) lots of laws and regulations, often to the
detriment of precisely the people those laws were designed to protect.
And the common usage is "case in point"
|
Uhh, you forgot to quote where you said it was required to point
somewhere valid for the call to go through, which is false it does not.
The fact that the federal government may or may not be violating some
rule does not even come into question when I was addressing your
assertion that it has to point somewhere valid or the call cant go
through.
You have changed from saying its required to point somewhere valid for
the call to route to saying that its a delivery method as opposed to an
informational element. I would suggest that you stop changing your
argument from one thing to another when assertions such as those are
challenged. It makes you look like you dont know what you are talking
about, and given that this is a business list it may make it difficult
for you to market yourself should you desire to do that. Just a little
friendly advice, take it or leave it.
Thanks for correcting me on case in point vs case and point. I will be
sure to credit you for that, you are correct in that singular point, it
is case in point. My apologies for mistyping a common phrase.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] ANI |
|
|
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:28 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | As I noted, I'm perfectly happy to let aggregators do it by contract;
the hammer that will fall on them is big enough that I don't think they
need to validate a second (or third) time.
|
well verification is a particularly hard thing to do correctly. For
example, e164.org will call the phone number then place the route. This
is not (or so it seems) done at intervals later on, which means you can
get a number, verify it, release it to someone else, get a new one, and
so on. You would end up with a bunch of numbers you only owned long
enough to get verified, and now belong to others, allowing you to hijack
their calls.
Ok, so that is a problem with e164.org, but taking the verification
thing further, how exactly do you propose to do this for all the
customers that you have? If you place a phone call, it only proves that
they (or a disgruntled employee) has access to that number at that
particular point in time, it does not verify anything for the future.
Signed documents asserting that a number is valid again only mean they
are valid at that point in time, which means that you have to somehow
hold the customer responsible for telling you that they no longer have
that number, unless and this is where a specific law would come into
play:
The law reads that its illegal to send it or cause it to be sent to a
phone company, and specifically excludes those that just route calls.
Basically the way it seems the florida law is written (based on news
articles about it not the actual statute which I have not read).
Basically it made it illegal if you are spoofing callerid/ani for the
purposes of deceit, but does not make it illegal for a phone company to
transit the bogus data (the whole common carrier status may also help),
nor does it make it illegal to spoof for purposes that do not involve
deceit (such as calling yourself and using it as some type of cookie).
If the laws are written this way, basically itsps only need to sit back
and wait for the subpoenas (which will be hard since most of the time
people only get caller id sometimes ani and if that is spoofed they have
no ability to trace it further - call trace by the phone company often
does not log the BTN which is usually the itsp that connected to the
pstn, using their cdr logs you can trace it back).
I know personally I have been given subpoenas for customer information,
in one instance it was for numbers I no longer had, in another it was
for someone who was placing calls - a service I did not offer at that
time, and no one even telco employees could figure out how they were
able to place a call with that number if not through me.
--
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
