SBC Corporate Headquarters

San Antonio, Texas

Host: SBC

Tuesday October 9, 2001 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Attendance:

Name	Company	Name	Company
Paul LaGattuta	AT&T	Marian Hearn	Canadian Constortium
H.L. Gowda	AT&T	Jean Anthony	Telecom Software
Cindy Sheehan	AT&T Broadband (phone)	John P. Malyar	Telcordia Technologies
Anne Cummins	ATW	Colleen Collard	Tekelec (phone)
Dave Cochran	BellSouth (phone)	Dave Garner	Qwest (phone)
Ron Steen	BellSouth	Gary Sacra	Verizon
James Grasser	Cingular Wireless	Jason Lee	WorldCom
Jeannie Hatchett	Cox (phone)	Vickie Goth	Sprint
Ron Stutheit	ESI	Linda Godfrey	Verizon Wireless
Threse Mooney	Global Crossing (phone)	Carissa Nicely	WorldCom (phone)
Maggie Lee	Illuminet	Patrick Lockett	Sprint
Jan Dempsey	Illuminet	Steve Addicks	WorldCom
Rick Jones	NENA	Jane Quenk	Neustar
Gustavo Hannecke	Neustar	Marcel Champagne	Neustar
Rob Coffman	Neustar (phone)	Sharon Bridges	Verizon (phone)
Gene Johnston	Neustar	Chris Duckett-Brown	Verizon Wireless
Charles Ryburn	SBC	Jill Byers	Bell Canada (phone)
Leah Luper	SBC	Dennis Robbins	ELI (phone)
David Taylor	SBC	Robert T. Jones	US Cellular Corp.
Rick Dresner	Sprint PCS (phone)	Sharon Gatewood	SBC (phone)
Nancy Griggs	Verizon (phone)	Daniel Crane	Neustar
Anna Miller	VoiceStream Wireless	Jim Rooks	Neustar
Rick Lennox	Williams Communications (phone)	Barbara Galbreath	Time Warner (phone)
Heidi Sander	Qwest (phone)

Review of Previous Month’s Minutes:

The team reviewed the August meeting minutes and corrections were made. They are now marked as final and will be distributed with the draft of the October minutes.

Testing Review Discussion:

Release 3.1

Release 3.0 Benchmark Determination - The industry had planned to do testing in mid-October to establish a benchmark for Release 3.0. This then was to be compared with the same sequence of tests using Release 3.1 features, to get some idea of what improvement the new release would offer and to reassure carriers outside Northeast that release 3.0/3.1 could be implemented safely. Neustar reminded the group that the test bed equipment configuration was changed several months ago and no longer is the same arrangement used for Release 3.0. Thus a true Release 3.0 benchmark cannot be determined. The LNPA-WG recommended that industry instead do a comparison in starting 1/14/02 of Release 3.1 with its features disabled versus the same tests of Release 3.1 with its features enabled. This largely would show the impact of NANC 179, the change order which consolidates NPAC-SOA notification messages into the same range groupings used to activate the port. The impact of the hardware change that accompanies Release 3.1 no longer can be evaluated.

Back-Out Plan - The Project Plan does not show development of a back-out plan. Neustar agreed to add this to the document, but pointed out that each carrier like-wise will need to develop its own back-out plan. If back-out were done, it would occur by middle of first production day for the new release.

Region 2 go/no-go Decision - The Project Plan indicates that go/no-go decision will be made February 25th. But this date is earlier than end of four-week soak period for Region 1 (Northeast). Neustar agreed to move the date to March 8, 2002, the point when the Northeast soak period ends.

User Profiles - Neustar reminded us that in the case of multiple SPIDs per association (Primary/Secondary situations) the NPAC SMS would send notifications (ranges or singles) based on the profiles of the SPID that the notifications are intended for regardless of the profile of the Primary SPID. r This is because the NPAC will revert to the primary SPID's profile regardless of which of the SOA's SPIDs is involved in the transaction. This appears a particularly pertinent alert for a Service Bureau.

Problem / Issues Management (PIMs):

PIM-1: Porting with Resellers.

The LNPA voted to accept the NNPO's proposed process flows comprised of only Option B (Network SP to Network SP flows) and recommend them as an industry standard. The LNPA has contacted the OBF and NNPO in writing advising both groups of the decision. We will perform a final proofing of the NNPO flows, revise the NANC wireline provisioning flows to incorporate the NNPO approach (Option B), and submit the revised flows to NANC as a recommended standard.

PIM-5: Unilateral Back-out of Inadvertent Port.

This is still pending at the NIIF (Issue 190). The NAPM LLC attorney is reviewing SOW 19 for their approval.

PIM-6: Modify 911 Record Migration Process & End User Move Indicator (EUMI)

This issue continues to be worked by NENA.

.

PIM-9: Inter-Carrier Trouble Reporting

The working group agreed that examples furnished by submitter didn’t really define the problem. It was agreed that the PIM would be closed. Charles Ryburn will notify submitter as to working group’s decision.

PIM 11: Moving Blocks between Switches

This PIM has been referred to INC and the issue number is 319. The INC is conducting a trial between, Verizon and Time Warner in the Northeast Region using the EDR feature in Release 3.0. They have advised Neustar, but do not need their assistance at this time, nor are they looking for their involvement. This method had been used following September 11^th WTC attack.

Steve Addicks - WorldCom is moving blocks in the MidWest, among it legacy companies. A question was raised relating to the updating of the LERG. Some SPs use the LERG to update their internal systems. Verizon is one of those companies that use LERG 13. A question was raised relating to who controls the number of trials that are being conducted. It would be nice to know the results of these trials. David Taylor - SBC agreed with HL Gowda - relating to the number of trials being conducted. The INC will publish the results of their trial as an answer to PIM 11.

ACTION: Barbara Galbreath – Time Warner will take our concerns, relating to the number of trials, back to the INC and report to us at the next meeting in November.

PIM 12: Operator Service Functionality

This issue is currently being addressed at the OBF's Messaging and Processing Subcommittee and will be kept open for tracking. A question was raised relating Jim Grasser - Cingular Wireless advising/updating the OBF on the input received at the last LNPA WG meeting. Jim provided the following update: The T1S1.3 subcommittee chair and he (Jim) had a conference call. The recommendation is the Operator Service provider should do the screening prior to the LIDB dip. Verizon does not screen on every TN.

ACTION: Jim Grasser will send us a copy of the OBF issue.

No switch vendor needs to be involved. There were two choices that we considered, and now there is a third (not to do the screen and block the call if the TN is not in LIDB).

PIM 13: Premature Disconnects

At last month's meeting, the LNPA-WG appeared to get beyond argument of whether old SP's removal of switch translations had to be after the NPAC activation. The dispute boiled down to what triggers the old SP's removal of its switch translations. WorldCom submitted a contribution to clarify that there appears to be two interpretations of what should trigger the old SP's removal of its switch translations for the ported number: (1.) the LSR due date or (2.) evidence of the NPAC activation.

Several incumbents, particularly Verizon, argue that the LSR due date is the appropriate trigger, albeit with a built in delay such as due date plus one. SBC argues that it cannot change its disconnect process, which works the disconnect on LSR due date, but is discussing a possible new process that is based on the NPAC activation. BellSouth actually uses the NPAC activation as its disconnect trigger, but would not support this as being the only valid approach.

AT&T Wireline emphasized that the text in the flows shows clearly that NPAC activation has occurred -- "the SPs update their LNP call routing databases" -- in flow diagram box 8 before the old SP switch translations are removed in flow diagram box 9. The discussion is continued to next month's meeting.

The NPAC activation trigger prevents "premature disconnection" in the event a change in LSR due date is not communicated in time to stop the process and thus engineers out of the porting process possible LSR due date error impact. However, re-engineering the process by companies using the LSR due date trigger is a significant effort and may be impractical to require at this late date, at least unless it can be demonstrated clearly that the LSR due date is not a disconnect trigger contemplated in official NANC flows (April 25, 1997 version as approved by FCC).

Action Item - During the discussion, it was recognized that the NPAC web site displays the wrong NANC process flows. The LNPA-WG will send Neustar a letter requesting that the site display the official April 25, 1997 flows.

Action Item - AT&T Broadband will develop presentation for next meeting which will illustrate impact of premature disconnect on users. Other companies are invited to offer statistics on premature disconnect volumes. Cindy Sheehan agreed to provide examples that are being used by different companies to resolve this Premature Disconnects.

PIM 14: NXX Codes Ownership Changes

This PIM has been referred to the INC as issue number 295 and is in initial closure.

PIM 15: Disconnect of NXX Code with Ported TNs

This PIM has been referred to INC.

PIM -16 (New) Removing Portability Designation on NXXs in the LERG

This is a new PIM submitted by Patrick Lockett - Sprint that addresses instances where the codeholder has removed the portability indicator in the LERG on an NPA-NXX that was originally opened as a portable code.

Wednesday October 10, 8:30 – 5:00pm

Attendance:

Name	Company	Name	Company
Paul LaGattuta	AT&T	Marian Hearn	Canadian Constortium
H.L. Gowda	AT&T	Jean Anthony	Telecom Software
Cindy Sheehan	AT&T Broadband (phone)	John P. Malyar	Telcordia Technologies
Anne Cummins	ATW	Colleen Collard	Tekelec (phone)
Dave Cochran	BellSouth (phone)	Dave Garner	Qwest (phone)
Ron Steen	BellSouth	Gary Sacra	Verizon
James Grasser	Cingular Wireless	Jason Lee	WorldCom
Jeannie Hatchett	Cox	Vickie Goth	Sprint
Ron Stutheit	ESI	Linda Godfrey	Verizon Wireless
Threse Mooney	Global Crossing (phone)	Carissa Nicely	WorldCom (phone)
Maggie Lee	Illuminet	Patrick Lockett	Sprint
Jan Dempsey	Illuminet	Steve Addicks	WorldCom
Rick Jones	NENA	Jane Quenk	Neustar
Gustavo Hannecke	Neustar	Marcel Champagne	Neustar
Rob Coffman	Neustar (phone)	Sharon Bridges	Verizon (phone)
Gene Johnston	Neustar	Chris Duckett-Brown	Verizon Wireless
Charles Ryburn	SBC	Jill Byers	Bell Canada (phone)
Leah Luper	SBC	Dennis Robbins	ELI (phone)
David Taylor	SBC	Robert T. Jones	US Cellular Corp.
Rick Dresner	Sprint PCS (phone)	Sharon Gatewood	SBC (phone)
Jason Moyer	Telecom PCS (phone)	Daniel Crane	Neustar
Anna Miller	VoiceStream Wireless	Jim Rooks	Neustar
Rick Lennox	Williams Communications (phone)	Barbara Galbreath	Time Warner (phone)
Beth Watkins (phone)	AT&T	Karen Wattslaga	CPUC (phone)

Release 3.1 Project Plan Review

Jane Quenk - Neustar reviewed the NPAC Release 3.1 Project Plan. Vendor conference calls have not started because only one vendor contacted them. Dave Garner - Qwest asked about the number of vendors who have contacted Neustar. The answer was a total of 9 vendors and the project plan shows 11, but 2 have dropped out. Jane said (Toni from Neustar) is sending out messages to all of the vendors. Gustavo Hannecke - Neustar said they are recommending that all of the vendors do the testing. The Washington, DC test subcommittee concluded and Neustar and the LNPA concurred that the ITP testing requirements do not require esisting SOW & LSMS deployments to be re ITPed this case at release 3.0 to 3.1 transition. On the SP vendor side, Neustar recommends that they do LSMS Interoperability testing. Neustar is being conservative and recommending regression testing. Steve Addicks asked if the turn-up 11/26 - a.k.a. "certification" testing is not completed by a SP, will Neustar disconnect them from the NPAC? Charles asked if this is something new? Dave Garner asked that a letter from Neustar be sent to the entire user (SPs) group advising them of this testing requirement.

ACTION: Jane Quenk - Neustar said she will add the Certification Testing requirement to the Project Plan. The Neustar letter will be sent to the users advising them of this requirement and add the issuance of this letter will be added to the Project Plan.

SOW 24 states that Interoperability and Regression Testing is required a.k.a. "Re-certification." SOW 28 refers to it as continuing re-certification.

ACTION: Gustavo Hannecke - Neustar will extract the statement relating to the Re-certification testing and include in a letter from them for public distribution.

A suggestion was made to have a "Go/No-go" statement in the Project Plan (Line 143 was suggested as a good location). Rob Coffman Neustar said that the decision would be two weeks before the implementation date. HL Gowda - AT&T was asking that "Back-Out" plan date be added to the Project Plan.

ACTION: Jane Quenk - Neustar will add line for a "Back-Out" decision to the Project Plan.

The "back-out" plan for the Northeast Region is for 3.1 to 3.0 and another "back-out" plan for all of the other Regions 3.1 to 2.0. Jim Rooks Neustar said that they would go back to the Friday before the implementation of the new software, and the priority would be the SO messages.

FRS Specs on One-Hour Restore Requirement Presentation - Jim Rooks

The FRS requires that the NPAC deny a recovery request from a provider if the time range requested exceeds the FRS specified tunable (default of 1 hour). However, carriers using either of two LSMS vendors are repeatedly requesting time range intervals that exceed the tunable. The algorithm implemented by these systems is to request the entire downtime range and then cut the time range in half each time the request is denied. This continues until a recovery request is made with a time range less than the tunable. This behavior results in a series of requests and denials, until a one-hour request is reached, followed by additional series of requests and denials until all the complete time range has been recovered in blocks of less than the tunable value. Instead of a recovery request for each hour from a carrier, the NPAC receives hundreds. This inefficient use of the NPAC negatively impacts the entire LNP industry. Neustar requests that all recovery operations be for a time range less than one hour until such time that the LNP industry determines that the tunable should be modified.

The LNPA-WG asked Neustar to formally contact the two vendors involved and provide the results of these contacts to the NAPM LLC. The LLC is asked to keep the LNPA-WG up to date on this matter.

The recovery process requirement is not tested in the regular Continued Certification Testing process, but apparently should be.

ACTION: Neustar took the action item to send a letter with an updated copy of FRS attachment to all of the SPs, along with a more detail report to the LLC.

Jim Rooks LNP Industry CMIP Interface Presentation:

Dave Garner felt that this is an LLC problem. This was related to the hardware discussion. The LLC Project Executives (PE) and Neustar did not want to share their hardware configuration in front of potential competitors. On page 2 bullet 2 - Jim agreed that there is no limit to the "peak".

Jim Rooks continued his earlier presentation. Dave Garner asked when would Neustar have an exact number?

ACTION: Any member who has a long-term solution to the interface problem should submit a contribution to the LNPA.

Minimum Connectivity Requirement (MCR) - Randy Buffenbarger Neustar:

BGP4 Section - The question was asked relating to objections or lack of implementation of this feature. Two providers said that they had not implemented BGP4. Randy suggested that Charles should report back to the LLC on the above status. Randy reported that 15 to 20 providers out of 75 completed the conversation. Randy said that they have done everything possible to contact the SPs to care for concerns.

ACTION: Paul LaGattuta - Acting as the CIC chair asked that all reference to GEP be removed from this document. Randy will advise the LNPA WG by the next meeting.

Ping Section - Qwest asked how many SPs have allowed Neustar to Ping their networks. Neustar said that they will allow a Ping into to their regional servers. John Malyar - Telcordia Technologies asked about a (Keep-Alive) message. Jim Rooks Neustar said that all of this is true if the network is up. HL Gowda - AT&T asked if this could be a recommendation vs. a requirement, because it is a diagnostics tool not a performance issue. Mark Thomas - Neustar suggested that the SPs could allow only access to certain parts of their network vs. the SP's entire network. Suggestions: "restrict" it and limit the "destinations" to your network, then setup a program to look for the Ping and verify that it is allowed.

Public IP Network and AS Numbers - HL Gowda asked how often did this happened? Randy responded only once that he knew. Mark Thomas said only handful.

Automatic Failover - Most SPs support this. Telcordia pointed out that it may be necessary to avoid auto failover in cases of perceived security violations.

Thursday October 11, 8:00 – 12:00 pm

Attendance:

Name	Company	Name	Company
Paul LaGattuta	AT&T	Marian Hearn	Canadian Constortium
H.L. Gowda	AT&T	Jean Anthony	Telecom Software
Cindy Sheehan	AT&T Broadband (phone)	John P. Malyar	Telcordia Technologies
Anne Cummins	ATW	Colleen Collard	Tekelec (phone)
Dave Cochran	BellSouth (phone)	Dave Garner	Qwest (phone)
Ron Steen	BellSouth	Gary Sacra	Verizon
James Grasser	Cingular Wireless	Jason Lee	WorldCom
Jeannie Hatchett	Cox	Vickie Goth	Sprint
Ron Stutheit	ESI	Linda Godfrey	Verizon Wireless
Threse Mooney	Global Crossing (phone)	Carissa Nicely	WorldCom (phone)
Maggie Lee	Illuminet	Patrick Lockett	Sprint
Jan Dempsey	Illuminet	Steve Addicks	WorldCom
Rick Jones	NENA	Jane Quenk	Neustar
Gustavo Hannecke	Neustar	Marcel Champagne	Neustar
Rob Coffman	Neustar (phone)	Sharon Bridges	Verizon (phone)
Gene Johnston	Neustar	Chris Duckett-Brown	Verizon Wireless
Charles Ryburn	SBC	Jill Byers	Bell Canada (phone)
Leah Luper	SBC	Dennis Robbins	ELI (phone)
David Taylor	SBC	Robert T. Jones	US Cellular Corp.
Rick Dresner	Sprint PCS (phone)	Sharon Gatewood	SBC (phone)
Nancy Griggs	Verizon (phone)	Daniel Crane	Neustar
Anna Miller	VoiceStream Wireless	Jim Rooks	Neustar
Rick Lennox	Williams Communications (phone)	Barbara Galbreath	Time Warner (phone)
Heidi Sander	Qwest (phone)

Subcommittee Reports:

Wireless Number Portability Operations Report - Jim Grasser:

List of items in letter for the LLC (Dec) meeting. Risk assessment document will be presented to NANC. Three companies completed new entrant testing, nine have requested testing dates and all of the others have not asked.

The Wireless sub-committee will present a letter to NANC advising them that the vendors may not be ready this year. Jim discussed the forecasting model for porting.

Wireless Number Pooling Task Force Report - Anna Miller - VoiceStream Wireless:

The Wireless Number Pooling Task Force reported on plans to implement "Native Block Pooling" (a.k.a. paper pooling) prior to the FCC November 24, 2002 deadline for wireless LNP/Pooling. The "Native Block Pooling" process will involve the donation of blocks by a wireless carrier and subsequent allocation by the P.A. of those same blocks over time back to the donor carrier. Thus no pooling actually occurs, since only a single carrier can draw from the pool of its donated blocks, but the administrative processes associated with block pooling are exercised. This advance practice should help the actual eventual implementation of wireless pooling proceed more smoothly.

The Native Block Pooling will begin March 2002, as a trial for the wireless providers. The forecasted demand will be in 150 NPAs and the worst case model uses approximately 4800 blocks/month. The Neustar model used 10 NPAs as a sample, to make this estimate. The next step is to develop a work plan to include a timeline, check list, etc. Both PA and the wireless providers will need to evaluate what will be involved to conduct this trial. Some of the considerations are as follows: 1) where do you get your NXXs from; 2) PA is looking at how many block applications they can process; 3) PA will use the FCC order as their instructions; 4) will involve a total of 108 NPAs plus; 5) PUCs were in attendance (TX) and others Commissions were on the conference bridge; 5) identify potential road blocks; and 6) establish milestones. Steve Addicks brought up the fact that wireless providers are in only 1/5 of the rate centers

Meeting Schedule:

2001 Meeting Schedule:

LNPA WG: Host:

November 13 - 15 Illuminet, Kansas City

December 11 -13 Neustar, New Orleans

2002 Meeting Schedule:

LNPA WG: Host:

January 8 - 10 TBD

February 12 - 14 TBD

March 5 - 7 TBD

April 9 - 11 Sprint, Kansas City

May 14 - 16 AT&T Wireless, Redmond, WA

June 11 - 13 TBD

July 9 - 11 TBD

August 13 - 15 Canadian Consortium, Vancouver, British Columbia,Canada

September 17 - 19 Verizon, Baltimore, MD

October 15 - 17 ESI, Denver, CO

November 12 - 14 TBD

December 10 - 12 TBD

Any company that wants to hosts may send e-mail to Charles. Anne Cummins AT&T Wireless said she will make the same request of the Wireless providers. The Wireless providers will be meeting the day before the LNPA WG meetings.

New Business:

Jamie Sharp is no longer with XO, he requested that everyone will need to update the "contact" list on ATIS web site.

Porting of FX customers Barbara Galbreath TW:

They are interested in porting a customer. Customer pays extra to have their number in a different rate area. Steve Addicks said that if the customer is not moving then the SP will need to come up with a FX arrangement.

Multi LRNs in the same LATA. This is being worked in the NNPO:

This request needs to ultimately go to the INC for their review and/or action.

Requesting Specific Thousand Blocks - Charles Ryburn SBC:

Charles asked if anyone was having problems getting specific thousand blocks. This has come up in SNET area, the PA would not allow the request for a specific block. Charles will get more details.