Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gemming Cept Numberingandaddressing
Gemming Cept Numberingandaddressing
Gemming Cept Numberingandaddressing
Overview
Process
Common effort by members of the PT FNI
Many cycles of interactions and dialog with mobile operators, M2M
consultants and M2M service providers
Result is the report with 4 options and draft recommendations
Is under public consultation (website: www.ero.dk)
In essence we ask the market to make a SWOT analyses of each
option
Get involved, if needed anonymity is ensured (final deadline
consultation: 31 October)
Final report will be adopted in WG NaN meeting (end of November)
E.164 numbers
E.164 numbers
E.164 numbers
NO E.164 numbers
10
11
12
13
Conclusion
High level of uncertainty on average grow rate of required M2M
E.164 numbers
Significant number of CEPT countries dont have sufficient capacity
in the mobile number ranges
In the long run IPv6 addresses will become superior
No harmonised approach on M2M numbering Solutions in Europe is
needed
Combination of options A-D is possible
What are further requirements on M2M communications which
might impact the numbering solutions?
- Different markets
- Data retention
- CLI
- Emergency calls
- Legal interception
- Directory services
ETSI TC M2M workshop, Sophia Antipolis, 20 October 2010
14
Draft Recommendations
NRA should in cooperation with marked players develop M2M
numbering policies to accommodate future growth
Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate also a longer
term solution
IPv6 addresses should preferably be used as long term solution for
M2M and other device based communication services
The new numbering schemes should not prohibit competition
Option A (existing Numbering ranges) should not be used where
M2M and traditional telecommunication need to be distinguished
(e.g. from a regulatory point of view)
Option B (new number range) and D (network internal numbers) are
needed if existing numbering ranges can not accommodate the
need for numbers
For M2M services where NP is an obligation option D should be
excluded
ETSI TC M2M workshop, Sophia Antipolis, 20 October 2010
15
16
Thank you
17