nanog mailing list archives
Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:24:38 -0700
On 9/10/20 1:56 PM, Brandon Svec wrote:
99%? If a phone number was used than the PSTN was used. The fact that SIP is involved in part or all of the call path is not very relevant except for peer-to-peer stuff like whatsapp, skype, signal, telegram, etc. (and even those don't use SIP, but I think you meant voip more than SIP specifically) Even some of those can use e.164 for part or all of the path.I do believe that if the robo call/scam/fraudulent call issue does not get resolved people may eventually start to give up and just use apps like that. Many probably have already.
We're probably not communicating because lots of carriers are using VoLTE which SIP end to end, so that is a lot more that 1%. I know that my local telco uses SIP over fiber at the little pedestal which terminates POTS and never touches SS7 anything from what I can tell. e.164 addresses are a relic of legacy telephony signalling, even if they're still used to make the user part of a From: address.
Mike
Current thread:
- FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Sean Donelan (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Michael Thomas (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Brandon Svec (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Mike Hammett (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Michael Thomas (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Christopher Morrow (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Brandon Svec (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Paul Timmins (Sep 10)
- Re: FCC: rulemaking on STIR/SHAKEN and Caller ID Authentication Michael Thomas (Sep 10)