in that example, I meant phone-context=international, of course :)
>________________________________ >From: Stanislav Sinyagin <[email protected]> >To: Jean-Pierre Schwickerath <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:29 AM >Subject: Re: [swinog] SIP gateway service documentation > > >RFC compliance is not a problem, but still there are SP-specific requirements >on how these RFCs are supported and what the SP expects from our side. Also >important, what SP is going to send toward us :) > > >For example, the numbering plan. Calls to UK, for example, should not be >0044.*, but 44.* with phone-context=national. I've got this information via a >phone conversation, and not in a written document. > > > >Everything works now, I'm just wondering if it's a standard practice to >deliver such a poor documentation. > > > > > > > > > > > >>________________________________ >>From: Jean-Pierre Schwickerath <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Cc: Stanislav Sinyagin <[email protected]> >>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:52 AM >>Subject: Re: [swinog] SIP gateway service documentation >> >>Hello Stan >> >>> The SP puts forward a number of requirements, such as >>> national/international context in To: field, then some special >>> requirements for CallerID privacy, etc. The problem is, we can't get >>> a document that describes the technical details of the interface, and >>> SP refuses to create such a document. All we've got is a number of >>> emails and some information from phone conversations. >> >>SIP and its extensions are fairly well standardized. Have a look at >>http://www.packetizer.com/ipmc/sip/standards.html for an overview of >>those RFCs. >>We all know the PBX manufacturers and their developers seldom fully >>comply to the standards so they should give you a good starting point >>on how it's supposed to be done. You will have to test each and every >>case with your SP unless he can garantee you he has implemented it >>fully standard compliant. >> >>> Is it a common situation for such a service? Am I too naive with my >>> expectations to receive a fully documented service? If it were a >>> no-name lousy cheap service provider, I wouldn't ask :) >> >>We never had any issues when connecting SIP trunks to a provider as >>long as they were using RFC compliant SIP (IMHO the RFC compliance is a >>major decision point when choosing the SP). And I second you on the >>point that the SP should document its extensions to the protocol if >>they are not standard compliant extensions. >> >>Regards >> >>Jean-Pierre >> >>-- >>HILOTEC Engineering + Consulting AG - Langnau im Emmental >>Energietechnik und Datensysteme: Server, PCs, Linux, Telefonanlagen, >>VOIP, Hosting, Datenbanken, Entwicklung, Komplettlösungen für KMUs >>Tel: +41 34 402 74 00 - http://www.hilotec.com/ >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >swinog mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > > >
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
