4 ms·

Phone numbers are going to (eventually) disappear. They are inefficient, hard to remember and not human-friendly (they are great for computer-based routing :P )

Phone numbers are going to (eventually) disappear. They are inefficient, hard to remember and not human-friendly (they are great for computer-based routing :P ). Easier thing we can do, is to map them down like we do it with IPs and domain names, but as usual, this is far from being a practical solution. Best think is to let conventional telephony die and VoIP take over its place.

jallmann 11y ago
> map them down like we do it with IPs and domain names We have been able to map phone numbers to SIP URIs for a long time with E.164 ENUM. Numbers are a hassle, but there's nothing preventing numbers from living alongside proper URIs today. > let conventional telephony die and VoIP take over its place. Many places are still circuit-switched at the last mile, whether over landline or cellular. We can't turn off the PSTN in favor of VoIP until everybody has switched over -- similar to the IPv6 changeover dilemma, although more tractable due to the ubiquity of Internet access and proper interworking -- no tunneling required. What I'm waiting for though, is the ability to "bring your own" SIP URI so the carriers can handle our calls in the same way GMail can handle our email for personal/business domains. (Not to mention the capability to dial out to SIP addresses...) Ideally, this would extend all the way down to "bring your own SIP proxy and registrar" where the carriers would just act as dumb pipes to carry your calls at the same QoS as theirs, but that's a far ways off.
- caruizdiaz 11y ago
  > We have been able to map phone numbers to SIP URIs for a long time with E.164 ENUM yes, because dialing 3.0.3.3.8.4.0.3.5.5.1.2.5.e164.arpa is super easy to do. I was talking about a proper solution, not patching an existing one. > We can't turn off the PSTN in favor of VoIP until everybody has switched over Exactly, but we have to start at some point. We have been doing phone calls for more than 100 years, and it remained practically unchanged since then.
  - jallmann 11y ago
    > yes, because dialing 3.0.3.3.8.4.0.3.5.5.1.2.5.e164.arpa is super easy to do. Nonsense, the user would never dial that. The number gets mechanically translated as necessary, which is extremely straightforward... > We have been doing phone calls for more than 100 years, and it remained practically unchanged since then. Really? Most of your comments in this thread are uninformed, bordering on the absurd. If you are doing a telecom startup (as your profile implies), I would encourage a better understanding of the industry: you can't compete with what you don't know.
- redbeard0x0a 11y ago
  Could you image what things would look like with rogue "DNS" servers that mapped bankofamerica.phone to a phisher controlled endpoint? You could no longer trust that calling the "number" on the back of your credit card would actually get you in touch with the actual bank.
  - jallmann 11y ago
    The same problems would happen if someone mapped "google.com" to a phisher controlled endpoint. TLS solves that, and by extension, so does SIPS. Then add in SRTP, etc.
pastycrinkles 11y ago
Right, because voip has a reputation for sounding great and being reliable. (/s)
- jon-wood 11y ago
  Done well, yes, it does. Just about any corporate call these days is going to be going over VoIP because it provides so much more flexibility. Just because a cheap ISP provides crappy VoIP doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed.
  - pastycrinkles 11y ago
    Maybe with dedicated fiber links that carry no other traffic, sure. But the vast, vast majority of voip routes tend not to measure up to their circuit switched counterparts. Why do you think things like T.38 and RFC-2833 exist?
    - caruizdiaz 11y ago
      > vast majority of voip routes tend not to measure up to their circuit switched counterparts That's because circuit switching is literally setting up a wired connection between two points. Good luck trying to be that reliable with a population the size of the Internet, and if you can, good luck being able to pay and maintain an infrastructure of that size. > T.38 and RFC-2833 exist Really? The last time I sent a fax was 2006.
      - pastycrinkles 11y ago
        > Really? The last time I sent a fax was 2006. You're clearly missing the point here. T.38 and RFC-2833 largely exist because there's many, many voip routes that can't transport low latency audio reliably. There's a lot of other things you can transport in a phone call that don't have out of band standards. If you require out of band standards to reliably transmit a fax or even something as basic as DTMF, you're clearly stifling what can be done within a perfectly valid form of transport. > Good luck trying to be that reliable with a population the size of the Internet, and if you can, good luck being able to pay and maintain an infrastructure of that size. Several companies have, and continue to do just that not just around the country, but around the world; end offices that serve customer lines are connected together by trunks to tandem switches. You clearly have no idea how the phone network works. > That's because circuit switching is literally setting up a wired connection between two points. It's not just one channel, though; techniques such as time or frequency division multiplexing allow you to stick thousands of calls over a cable or RF link.

jallmann 11y ago

> map them down like we do it with IPs and domain names We have been able to map phone numbers to SIP URIs for a long time with E.164 ENUM. Numbers are a hassle, but there's nothing preventing numbers from living alongside proper URIs today. > let conventional telephony die and VoIP take over its place. Many places are still circuit-switched at the last mile, whether over landline or cellular. We can't turn off the PSTN in favor of VoIP until everybody has switched over -- similar to the IPv6 changeover dilemma, although more tractable due to the ubiquity of Internet access and proper interworking -- no tunneling required. What I'm waiting for though, is the ability to "bring your own" SIP URI so the carriers can handle our calls in the same way GMail can handle our email for personal/business domains. (Not to mention the capability to dial out to SIP addresses...) Ideally, this would extend all the way down to "bring your own SIP proxy and registrar" where the carriers would just act as dumb pipes to carry your calls at the same QoS as theirs, but that's a far ways off.

caruizdiaz 11y ago
> We have been able to map phone numbers to SIP URIs for a long time with E.164 ENUM yes, because dialing 3.0.3.3.8.4.0.3.5.5.1.2.5.e164.arpa is super easy to do. I was talking about a proper solution, not patching an existing one. > We can't turn off the PSTN in favor of VoIP until everybody has switched over Exactly, but we have to start at some point. We have been doing phone calls for more than 100 years, and it remained practically unchanged since then.
- jallmann 11y ago
  > yes, because dialing 3.0.3.3.8.4.0.3.5.5.1.2.5.e164.arpa is super easy to do. Nonsense, the user would never dial that. The number gets mechanically translated as necessary, which is extremely straightforward... > We have been doing phone calls for more than 100 years, and it remained practically unchanged since then. Really? Most of your comments in this thread are uninformed, bordering on the absurd. If you are doing a telecom startup (as your profile implies), I would encourage a better understanding of the industry: you can't compete with what you don't know.
redbeard0x0a 11y ago
Could you image what things would look like with rogue "DNS" servers that mapped bankofamerica.phone to a phisher controlled endpoint? You could no longer trust that calling the "number" on the back of your credit card would actually get you in touch with the actual bank.
- jallmann 11y ago
  The same problems would happen if someone mapped "google.com" to a phisher controlled endpoint. TLS solves that, and by extension, so does SIPS. Then add in SRTP, etc.

pastycrinkles 11y ago

Right, because voip has a reputation for sounding great and being reliable. (/s)

jon-wood 11y ago
Done well, yes, it does. Just about any corporate call these days is going to be going over VoIP because it provides so much more flexibility. Just because a cheap ISP provides crappy VoIP doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed.
- pastycrinkles 11y ago
  Maybe with dedicated fiber links that carry no other traffic, sure. But the vast, vast majority of voip routes tend not to measure up to their circuit switched counterparts. Why do you think things like T.38 and RFC-2833 exist?
  - caruizdiaz 11y ago
    > vast majority of voip routes tend not to measure up to their circuit switched counterparts That's because circuit switching is literally setting up a wired connection between two points. Good luck trying to be that reliable with a population the size of the Internet, and if you can, good luck being able to pay and maintain an infrastructure of that size. > T.38 and RFC-2833 exist Really? The last time I sent a fax was 2006.
    - pastycrinkles 11y ago
      > Really? The last time I sent a fax was 2006. You're clearly missing the point here. T.38 and RFC-2833 largely exist because there's many, many voip routes that can't transport low latency audio reliably. There's a lot of other things you can transport in a phone call that don't have out of band standards. If you require out of band standards to reliably transmit a fax or even something as basic as DTMF, you're clearly stifling what can be done within a perfectly valid form of transport. > Good luck trying to be that reliable with a population the size of the Internet, and if you can, good luck being able to pay and maintain an infrastructure of that size. Several companies have, and continue to do just that not just around the country, but around the world; end offices that serve customer lines are connected together by trunks to tandem switches. You clearly have no idea how the phone network works. > That's because circuit switching is literally setting up a wired connection between two points. It's not just one channel, though; techniques such as time or frequency division multiplexing allow you to stick thousands of calls over a cable or RF link.