TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead

Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead

Thor Lancelot Simon (
Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:18:34 +0000 (UTC)

In article <>, Rick Merrill
<> wrote:

> Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

>> In article <>,
>> Rick Merrill <> wrote:

>>> I suspect from the way current VoIP calls are structured that it would be
>>> (a) very easy to spoof the number,
>>> (b) impossible to enforce upon overseas numbers and
>>> (c) too easy to make the number unavailable in the first place. Heck,
>>> even the doctor's office number is "unavailble".

>> This is all false. Why do we have this same discussion over and over
>> again every few months?

> Well, you don't say where you think you got your information.

I got it from 10 years of design and analysis experience with the
underlying protocols; that it is impossible to "spoof" calling party
ID in properly configured SS7 networks whose operators do not configure
trunks to _customers_ as if they were trunks to _network equipment_ is
simply a matter of fact.

As all the interworking standards make clear, any interworking to a
protocol which does not differentiate between customer-provided and
network-provided calling party identification must either use the
supplied number as a customer provided number only, or replace it with
the BTN for the trunk.

Thor Lancelot Simon

"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: telecomdirect_daily: "TelecomDirect News Daily Update - July 17, 2006"
Go to Previous message: JE Durbin: "Re: Microsoft Kills Off 'My Private Folder' Application"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead"
Next in thread: "Re: Caution: Unidentified Callers Ahead"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page