Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
LarrySheldon at cox.net
Tue Feb 23 09:06:07 CST 2010
On 2/22/2010 11:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 8:42 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> When Somebody calls one of my "portable" telephone numbers, they don't
>> get a message telling them they have to call some other number. The get
>> call progress tones.
> You are confusing what is presented to the end-user with what might be going on
> within the infrastructure service.
> Call progress tones are the former and their primary goal is to keep the user
> happy, providing very constrained information. Especially for mobile phones,
> there is often all sorts of forwarding signallying going on while you hear to tones.
I understand that--and had not considered that the global inventory of
MTAs could be swapped out with stuff that could handle the redirection
I had left the telephone business by the time SS7 came along--how was
that introduced? (I have assumed that it was as the #2, #4, and #5
machines and their equivalents were swapped out for ESS machines for a
lot of additional reasons.)
> In general, a core problem with the Knesset law is that it presumes something
> that is viable for the phone infrastructure is equally - or at least tolerably -
> viable in the email infrastructure. Unfortunately, the details of the two are
> massively different in terms of architecture, service model, cost structures and
> operational skills.
No kidding--something like making airlines do something railroads can do.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
More information about the NANOG