RFC 3482: Number Portability in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN): An Overview
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document provides an overview of E.164 telephone number portability (NP) in the Global Switched Telephone Network (GSTN). NP is a regulatory imperative seeking to liberalize local telephony service competition, by enabling end-users to retain telephone numbers while changing service providers. NP changes the fundamental nature of a dialed E.164 number from a hierarchical physical routing address to a virtual address, thereby requiring the transparent translation of the later to the former. In addition, there are various regulatory constraints that establish relevant parameters for NP implementation, most of which are not network technology specific. Consequently, the implementation of NP behavior consistent with applicable regulatory constraints, as well as the need for interoperation with the existing GSTN NP implementations, are relevant topics for numerous areas of IP telephony works-in-progress with the IETF. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3482
- Published
- February 2003
- Authors
- M. Foster; T. McGarry; J. Yu
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rai
- Pages
- 30
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3761The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)Obsoleted
April 2004
- RFC 2916E.164 number and DNSObsoleted
September 2000
- RFC 4725ENUM Validation ArchitectureCurrent
November 2006
- RFC 4759The ENUM Dip Indicator Parameter for the "tel" URICurrent
December 2006
- RFC 4969IANA Registration for vCard EnumserviceUpdated
August 2007
- RFC 4979IANA Registration for Enumservice 'XMPP'Updated
August 2007
- RFC 5076ENUM Validation Information Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning ProtocolCurrent
December 2007
- RFC 5105ENUM Validation Token Format DefinitionCurrent
December 2007
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?