----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com>
> On 7/15/19 12:07 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >> Yes, of course we sent out calls with "spoofed" CNID. >> >> But, even though only 2 or 3 or our 5 carriers* held *our* feet to the fire, >> we held the clients' feet to the fire, requiring them to prove to our >> satisfaction that they had adminstrative control over the numbers in >> question. >> >> But it's the carrier's responsibility, properly, to do that work. > > How do the clients prove that? Do you know, I don't know; it was above my paygrade; the few times I stubbed a toe on it, I threw it over a wall. I presume that there was paperwork... > Way back when when we were working on mipv6 we had to work through a > somewhat similar problem for handoffs. The ultimate answer was a return > routability test: that is, if you can answer on the address you're > trying to claim "ownership" for, it's good enough. Might have been a handshake like that; I suspect it was mostly just "here's a picture of the client's phone bill". > But right you are, it's ultimately the carrier who needs to care about > this problem at or nothing gets better. Yup. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274