[80520] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannigan, Martin)
Mon May 2 20:59:46 2005
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:59:15 -0400
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>,
"nanog list" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Jay R. Ashworth
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:14 PM
> To: nanog list
> Subject: Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > > The PBX intercepts the call and uses special trunks to the PSAP;
> > > it also has to send data telling where the caller is.
> >=20
> > There are no special trunks to the PSAP from a PBX.
>=20
> Actually, Martin, there are.
>=20
> For E-911 campus-type service, at least.
>=20
> You apparently need to use either a PRI or a CAMA trunk to extend the
> calling PBX extension number to the PSAP, so it can ALI the=20
> appropriate
> location for the dispatcher.
>=20
> See=20
>=20
> http://www.911etc.com/pbx_solutions.html
> as well as
> http://www.xo.com/products/smallgrowing/voice/local/psali/
=20
Two managed services? I'd prefer not to digress to
PBX's. The ss7 component more interesting, and, I would=20
find arguing the technical merits of the solution more=20
satisfying than arguing with google queries. The only=20
think interesting is that they are supporting the theme=20
of the thread, 911, $call proto, and SS7, all dependant=20
on each other=20
YMMV, but I think I've reached my public=20
posting limit for the day.
Best,
-M<
