Internet DRAFT - draft-foster-e164-gstn-npusa

draft-foster-e164-gstn-npusa




                                                            Mark Foster 
Internet Draft                                              Tom McGarry 
Document: <draft-foster-e164-gstn-npusa-06.txt>                James Yu 
                                                          NeuStar, Inc. 
Category: Informational                                     May 6, 2003 
 
 
    
        Telephone Number Portability Administration in the U.S. 
 
 
    
Status of this Memo 
 
   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC].  
 
   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of 
   six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 
   documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."  
    
   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 
     
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 
    
 
Copyright Notice 
 
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All rights reserved. 
    
    
 
Abstract 
    
   This document provides a historical as well as practical overview of 
   the implementation of Number Portability Administration for 
   telephone numbers in the United States (U.S.). There are various 
   regulatory constraints that establish relevant parameters for NP 
   implementation, most of which are not network technology specific. 
   This document describes the NP business model and the architecture 
   for NP administration in the North America.  It also briefly 
   discusses the functions performed by the NP administrator and the 
   cost recovery mechanism. 
 
 
 
 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu         Expired on November 6, 2003         [Page 1] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
1. Introduction 
 
   This document provides a historical as well as practical overview of 
   the implementation of Number Portability (NP) Administration for 
   telephone numbers in the United States (U.S.).  This document 
   describes the NP business model and the architecture for NP 
   administration in the North America.  It also briefly discusses the 
   functions performed by the NP administrator and the cost recovery 
   mechanism. 
 
   The North American telecommunications industry began to seriously 
   investigate methods of providing local number portability (LNP) in 
   late 1994.  On July 13, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission 
   (FCC) in the U.S. issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) FCC 
   Docket Number 95-116 that opened discussion on NP and sought 
   comments on a wide variety of policy and technical issues related to 
   NP. 
    
   In 1995 and 1996 several state regulatory bodies, notably the 
   Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), began the process of officially 
   selecting the architecture to be used for NP in their respective 
   states.  After considerable discussion and deliberation, the 
   "Location Routing Number (LRN)" scheme was selected by Illinois, and 
   other states.  The switching and signaling requirements for number 
   portability developed in the Illinois LNP workshop under the 
   auspices of the ICC became the basis of the de facto North American 
   industry standards [ICC].  The activities on number portability in 
   the North America also interacted with activities in many other 
   parts of world. 
    
   There are various regulatory constraints that establish relevant 
   parameters for NP implementation, most of which are not network 
   technology specific. This document describes the NP business model 
   and the architecture for NP administration in the North America.  It 
   also briefly discusses the functions performed by the NP 
   administrator and the cost recovery mechanism. 
    
 
2. Abbreviations and Acronyms 
    
   ACQ     All Call Query 
   AIN     Advanced Intelligent Network 
   CRTC    Canadian Radio and Television Commission 
   FCC     Federal Communications Commission 
   ICC     Illinois Commerce Commission 
   IETF    Internet Engineering Task Force 
   LEC     Local Exchange Carrier 
   LLC     Limited Liability Corporation 
   LNP     Local Number Portability 
   LRN     Location Routing Number 
   LSMS    Local Service Management System 
   NANC    North American Numbering Council 
   NP      Number Portability 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 2] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
   NPAC    Number Portability Administration Center 
   NPDB    Number Portability Database 
   NPRM    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
   OSS     Operation Support System 
   PUC     Public Utility Commission 
   QoR     Query on Release 
   RBOC    Regional Bell Operating Company 
   SMS     Service Management System 
   SOA     Service Order Administration 
   SS7     Signaling System Number 7 
   STP     Signaling Transfer Point 
   TN      Telephone Number 
   U.S.    United States 
    
    
3. Performance/Legal/Regulatory Requirements 
    
   After substantial industry discussion and debate, and extensive 
   comments filed with the FCC, the FCC and the U.S. telecommunications 
   industry set the following minimum performance criteria for LNP: 
    
   1. Support existing network services, features and capabilities. 
   2. Efficiently use numbering resources. 
   3. Not require end users to change their telecommunication numbers.  
   4. Not require telecommunications carrier to rely on databases, 
     other network facilities, or services provided by other 
     telecommunications carriers in order to route calls to proper 
     termination point. 
   5. Not result in unreasonable degradation in service quality or 
     network reliability when implemented. 
   6. Not result in unreasonable degradation of service quality or 
     network reliability when customers switch carriers. 
   7. Not result in a carrier having a proprietary interest. 
   8. Be able to accommodate location and service portability in the 
     future. 
   9. Have no significant adverse impact outside areas where number 
     portability is deployed. 
    
   In July 1996, the FCC issued the First Report and Order on LNP under 
   95-116, calling for the deployment of LNP across the U.S. starting 
   in 1997.  The FCC did not mandate any specific implementation of LNP 
   in the U.S., but it did call upon the industry to develop and 
   endorse a national standard that would ensure interoperability with 
   all industry segments, including wireless.  While providing overall 
   guidelines and requirements for LNP, it did explicitly state that 
   the LRN method met these requirements, whereas alternate proposals 
   (such as Query on Release or QoR) did not. 
    
   A core requirement was that a carrier who is serving ported numbers 
   need not be reliant on any other carrier (especially the donor 
   network) for completing calls, whether for call transport/routing or 
   for signaling.  That's not to say that a carrier couldn't 
   voluntarily opt to use another carrier or the donor network for 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 3] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
   queries or call routing.  But the key is voluntarily.  This 
   requirement was imposed on all NP implementations in the U.S. for 
   common carrier telephony services regardless of the network 
   technology employed. 
    
   Similar requirements were adopted by the Canadian Radio and
   Television Commission (CRTC), the equivalent of the FCC in Canada, 
   and in a number of regulatory and industry bodies in other countries 
   (e.g., Belgium, Denmark, Spain, and Switzerland) which resulted in 
   the use of centralized Number Portability Databases (NPDBs) to 
   support number portability. 
    
   In the U.S. and Canada, the All Call Query (ACQ) scheme was adopted 
   because it does not rely on the donor network for call routing (see 
   requirements numbers 4 and 7) and it can accommodate location and 
   service portability in the future.  
     
   In the U.S. and Canada, there is also the "N-1" guideline that 
   recommends that the network next to the destination network perform 
   the NPDB query if the NPDB query has not been done or the routing 
   information is not available (e.g., due to signaling interworking).  
   This is to prevent the call from being re-routed at the donor 
   network.  In the U.S., the wireline carriers are required to support 
   NP in certain service areas in phases.  The wireless carriers' 
   support of NP has been postponed until November 2002. 
    
    
4. NP Administration Process in the North America 
 
 
4.1 Business Model 
    
   Figure 1 shows the NP business model that was adopted in the U.S. 
   and Canada.  The U.S. is divided into seven regions coinciding with 
   the boundaries of the original seven Regional Bell Operating Company 
   (RBOC) regions.  This was done to facilitate the formation of 
   separate contracting and administrative areas (formed as limited 
   liability companies) for LNP in the U.S. intentionally coinciding 
   with the original RBOC boundaries, thus enabling each RBOC to 
   participate singly in each of these areas. 
    
   A contractor was selected in open competitive procurements conducted 
   by the industry to be the NPAC provider for each of the seven NPAC 
   regions (Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southwest, Southeast, 
   Western, and West Coast) in the U.S. The same thing happened in 
   Canada as well.  Each Limited Liability Corp. (LLC) in the seven 
   U.S. regions and Canadian Consortium maintain largely identical 
   contracts with the selected contractor(s) covering each region. 
    
  The FCC and North American Numbering Council (NANC) oversee the 
  technical and operational standards and cost recovery rulemakings.  
  The state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) also influenced the 
  development of technical and operational standards. 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 4] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
   
  Each LLC signed a master contract with the selected NPAC that set the 
  prices and terms and provided the form of User Agreement for the 
  selected NPAC to sign with each individual NPAC user.  NPAC users are 
  any bona fide entity that either ports numbers or subscribes to 
  updates to the NPDB provided by the NPAC. 
    
   Before becoming a NPAC user, a Customer must first sign and return a 
   Non-Disclosure Agreement before any other documentation can be sent.    
   Therefore after the NPAC receives a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement 
   the Customer can now receive the Master Agreement, User Agreement, 
   and Interconnect Plan.  The Master Agreement is the top-level 
   overall contract. 
    
 
         +--------+             +----------+ 
         |  FCC   |------------>|   State  | 
         |  NANC  |<---+   +--->|   PUCs   | 
         +--------+    |   |    +----------+ 
                       |   | 
                       v   v      (Master 
                +--------------+  Agreement) +----------+ 
                | Regional LLC |<----------->|   NPAC   | 
                |   Contract   |             |          | 
                | Administrator|             +----------+ 
                +--------------+                  ^ 
                         ^                        | 
                         |                        | 
                         v                        | 
                   +----------+                   | 
                   |   NPAC   |<------------------+ 
                   |   Users  |  (One User Agreement per User) 
                   +----------+ 
    
    
       Figure 1.  NP Administration Business Model in the U.S. 
    
 
   The User Agreements come under the Master Agreements and must be 
   signed by the individual Customers who wish to use NPAC services.  
   If a Customer plans on operating in more than one region, the 
   Customer must sign a separate User Agreement for each of the regions 
   where operations will take place. 
    
   The Interconnect Plan is another NPAC document that the Customer 
   must sign and return.  This document provides an overview of the 
   customer interconnection to the NPAC. 
    
   The new customer process is shown below. 
    
   - Customer contacts Chicago NPAC (Help Desk) to request information. 
   - Introduction Package (Application, Non-Disclosure Agreement) sent 
     to customer. 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 5] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
   - Customer signs and returns Non-disclosure Agreement. 
   - Master Agreement, User Agreement and Interconnect Plan sent to 
     Customer. 
   - Customer signs and returns User Agreement. 
   - Customer signs and returns Interconnect Plan. 
   - Customer data entered. 
    
    
4.2 NPAC Architecture 
    
   Figure 2 shows the architecture for number portability 
   administration in the U.S. and Canada. 
 
 
                 (Carrier Facilities)        :    (NPAC Facilities) 
                                             : 
                          +---------+        : 
                          |   SOA   |        : 
                          |         |-------------------+ 
                          +---------+        :          | 
                                             :          | 
                                             :     +----------+ 
                                             :     | NPAC/SMS | 
                                             :     |          | 
                                             :     +----------+ 
                                             :          | 
      +---------+         +---------+        :          | 
      |  NPDB   |---------|  LSMS   |-------------------+ 
      |         |         |         |        : 
      +---------+         +---------+        : 
                                             : 
    
                     Figure 2. NPAC Architecture. 
 
    
   The interface between the Service Order Administration (SOA) and the 
   NPAC/SMS (Service Management System) is for provisioning ported end-
   user data including the support of the creation, cancellation, 
   retrieval and update of subscription, service provider, and network 
   information.  The local exchange carriers operate the SOAs. 
    
   The interface between the Local Service Management System (LSMS) and 
   the NPAC/SMS is mainly used for downloading ported number 
   information from the NPAC/SMS to the LSMS.  The LSMS then updates 
   the NPDB.  A local exchange carrier may operate the LSMS if it 
   decides to deploy an NPDB itself.  A service bureau can also operate 
   the LSMS to provision several Local Exchange Carriers' (LECs') NPDBs 
   or operate the LSMS and the NPDB for the operators (e.g., LECs or 
   long distance carriers) to query.  The interface between the LSMS 
   and the NPDB is up to the entities that operate them. 
    
   The functional requirement specification developed under the 
   auspices of the NANC defines the external functionality of the NPAC 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 6] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
   SMS [FRS].  The interfaces between the NPAC/SMS and the SOA or LSMS 
   use standards-based communications and security technologies and are 
   made public [IIS].  Please note that only the information about the 
   ported numbers is stored at the NPAC databases and the NPDBs at 
   present. 
 
 
4.3 NPAC SMS Functions 
    
   This section provides a list of the NPAC SMS functions.  Please see 
   [FRS] for details. 
    
  - Provisioning Service: For the new service provider to notify the 
     NPAC SMS of a provision request for a ported number and to send an 
     activation notice to activate the update from the NPAC SMS to the 
     LSMS. 
   
  - Disconnect Service: For handling disconnection of the telephony 
     service for a ported number. 
   
  - Repair Service: For resolving problems detected either by a Service 
     Provider or by a customer contacting a Service Provider.  
   
  - Conflict Resolution: For resolving a conflict when there is 
     disagreement between the old and new Service Providers as to who 
     will be providing service for the telephone number (TN).  Please 
     note that the processes for obtaining authorization from the 
     customer to port a number are defined by the Service Providers.  
     The NPAC is not involved in obtaining or verifying customer 
     approval to port a telephone number. 
   
  - Disaster Recovery and Backup: For having a backup facility and the 
     disaster recovery procedures in place for planned and unplanned 
     downtime at the primary facility. 
   
  - Order Cancellation: For the new Service Provider to cancel a 
     previously submitted but not activated provision request. 
    
   - Audit Request: For troubleshooting customer problems and also as a 
     maintenance process to ensure data integrity across the entire NP 
     network. 
    
   - Report Request: For supporting report generation for pre-defined 
     and ad-hoc reports. 
    
   - Data Management: For managing network, Service Provider, and 
     customer subscription data.  The network data defines the 
     configuration of the NP service and network and includes such data 
     as: participating Service Providers, NPA-NXXs that are portable, 
     and LRNs associated with each Service Provider.  The Service 
     Provider data indicates who the NP Service Providers are and 
     includes location, contact name, security, routing, and network 

  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 7] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
     interface information.  The subscription data indicates how local 
     number portability should operate to meet subscribers' needs. 
    
   - NPA-NXX Split Processing: For the administration of the 
     information for NPA split (the current NPA, the new NPA, and the 
     affected NXXs) plus the beginning and end date of the permissive 
     dialing period. 
     
   - Business Support: For supporting service providers that have 
     different needs for business hours and days available for porting.  
    
   - Notification Recovery: For allowing a Service Provider to capture, 
     via a recovery process, all notifications that were missed during 
     a downtime period for the Service Provider. 
    
 
4.4 Cost Recovery 
    
   In the FCC's Third Report and Order, adopted May 5, 1998, released 
   May 12, 1998 and published in the Federal Registry July 29, 1998 the 
   Commission implemented section 251(e)(2) with regards to the costs 
   of providing long-term number portability.  Section 251(e)(2) of the 
   Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act), as amended requires that "the 
   cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration 
   arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all 
   telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as 
   determined by the Commission."
    
   The costs can be categorized below. 
    
   - Share costs incurred by industry as a whole for the NPACs: 
    
    * Non-recurring costs, e.g., administrator costs to implement 
      database hardware and software. 
    * Recurring costs, e.g., administrator costs to administer the 
      databases. 
    * Costs incurred by administrators to upload and download data to 
      and from databases.  Shared costs of each regional database 
      distributed among telecommunications carriers with revenue 
      derived from providing telecommunications service in the area 
      served by the database, in proportion to carrier's share of 
      revenue for the region.  Carriers without such revenue assessed 
      $100 per year. 
    
   - Carrier-specific costs incurred by each carrier that directly 
     relates to providing NP, e.g., querying calls, porting telephone 
     numbers between carriers. 
    
    * Dedicated costs, e.g., number portability software, NPDBs and 
      Signaling Transfer Point (STPs) reserved exclusively for NP. 
    * Joint costs, e.g., software generics, switch hardware, Operation 
      Support System (OSS), Signaling System Number 7 (SS7) or Advanced 
      Intelligent Network (AIN) upgrade, incremental to providing NP.  
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 8] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
      Carriers may include incremental overhead incurred specifically 
      in providing NP. 
    
   Incumbent LECs may recover costs directly related to providing NP 
   through federally tariffed charges that can be query-service 
   charges, prearranged and default, and monthly end-user charges. For 
   example, the end-users in the metropolitan D.C. area pay 23 cents 
   per month for NP surcharge. Carriers, other than incumbent LECs, may 
   recover costs in any manner consistent with state and federal laws 
   and regulations. 
 
 
5. Security Considerations 
 
   Communication over the SOA and LSAM interfaces must be secure and 
   the NPAC must authenticate the communicating entity when 
   establishing a session over the SOA or LSMS interface.  Otherwise, 
   porting event can be initiated without the knowledge of the involved 
   LECs or the LRN associated with a ported TN can be changed that 
   would cause the calls to that TN to be routed to the wrong switch. 
 
 
6. IANA Considerations 
 
   This document introduces no new values for IANA registration. 
 
 
7. Normative References 
 
   [FRS] NANC, "Functional Requirements Specification - NPAC SMS, 
        Release 3.2.0a," October 3, 2002. 
    
   [ICC] ICC, "Generic Switching & Signaling Requirements for Number 
        Portability, Issue 1.05," August 1, 1997. 
    
   [IIS] NeuStar (formerly Lockheed Martin IMS Corporation), prepared 
        for the North American Numbering Council (NANC),"NPAC SMS 
        interoperable Interface Specification, 3.2.0a," October 3, 
        2002. 
    
   [RFC] Scott Bradner, RFC2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- 
        Revision 3," October 1996. 
    
 
8. AuthorsĘ Addresses 
 
   Mark D. Foster 
   NeuStar, Inc. 
   46000 Center Oak Plaza 
   Sterling, VA 20166 
   United States 
    
   Phone: +1-571-434-5410 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 9] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
   Fax:   +1-571-434-5401 
   EMail: mark.foster@neustar.biz 
    
    
   Tom McGarry 
   NeuStar, Inc. 
   46000 Center Oak Plaza 
   Sterling, VA 20166 
   United States 
    
   Phone: +1-571-434-5570 
   Fax:   +1-571-434-5401 
   EMail: tom.mcgarry@neustar.biz 
    
    
   James Yu 
   NeuStar, Inc. 
   46000 Center Oak Plaza 
   Sterling, VA 20166 
   United States 
    
   Phone: +1-571-434-5572 
   Fax:   +1-571-434-5401 
   EMail: james.yu@neustar.biz 
    
 
Full Copyright Statement 
 
   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.  
    
   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 
   English. 
    
   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 
    
   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 
  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 10] 

Telephone Number Portability in the GSTN: An Overview       May 6, 2003 
 
 
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 
    
 
Acknowledgement 
 
   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 
   Internet Society. 
 










































  
Foster,McGarry,Yu       Expired on November 6, 2003           [Page 11]