Problems and Issues Management
In late 1999, the LNPA WG, now known as the Number Portability Industry Forum (NPIF), established a "Problem Identification and Management" (PIM) process for Number Portability (np) issues. The group, made up of Number Portability Industry members, developed:
- Issue submittal guidelines (PIM Process Scope)
- Issue submittal form (Problem/Issue Identification and Description Form)
- Issue referral form (Problem/Issue Referral Cover Letter)
- Process flows (PIM Process Flow Narratives and PIM Process Flow Graphics)
- Tracking mechanism (PIMs Tracking Matrix)
The NPIF is not responsible for resolving all Number Portability problems. The NPIF performs an initial evaluation of each problem/issue submitted, then either develops a resolution for the issue or refers it to the appropriate forum for resolution. Issues submitted are tracked in the PIMs Tracking Matrix.
Issues should be submitted to the NPIF using the Problem/Issue Identification and Description Form, at least two weeks before the NPIF meeting at which Number Portability issue's discussion is desired.
|Current and prospective NPAC users have a need for a list of vendors who offer services and systems related to NPAC such as LSMS systems, SOA systems and Service Bureaus. Currently there is no list of vendors that provide these services.
|NANPA obtains certain ad hoc NPAC data once a week. Obtaining such data each business day (as needed) instead would be beneficial to both NANPA and service providers by allowing NANPA to process returned/donated or abandoned thousands-blocks and NXX codes more quickly. The NPAC Help Desk process to produce these reports is a manual one.
|If a SOA notification is missed, there is no way to tell if T2 has expired.
|The FRS has requirements for the LNPA to support faxing reports. Since taking over the LNPA service in 2018, iconectiv has not faxed a single report. It appears that support for faxing of reports is no longer needed
|There is no mechanism to identify an Inter-Service Provider Port as a port within the same Company that is using different SPID values
|Prior to a SPID Migration, the LNP Administrator (LNPA) has several preliminary tasks that need to be worked, with some of these tasks directly impacting Service Providers (SP) that may not be the Ol…
|NANPA is in the process of developing a new system that will combine the functionality provided today in the existing NANP Administration System (NAS), Pooling Administration System (PAS) and Routing…
|Prior to a decision to increase the transaction per second (TPS) rate, industry production load testing is recommended to ensure any increase will not adversely impact industry service provider syste…
|Currently the FRS has requirements to validate that a Service Provider can be removed only if all associated Portable NPA-NXXs and LRNs have been removed. The FRS also has requirements to validate no…
|Portable NPA-NXXs, Number Pool Blocks, and SVs for 976 NXXs (i.e., codes of the form NPA-976) exist within three NPAC regions. According to the TBCOCAG Section 7.3.8, the “976 CO Code shall only be u…
|The FRS allows for a Portable NPA-NXX to be created with an Effective Date in the past but does not specify a reasonable limit for the past date allowed.
|VoIP service providers are susceptible to IP network attacks, as evident by recent DDoS attacks (see definition in section F below), both domestically and abroad in the last several months. In order …
|Currently, there is no limit to the number of delegate SPIDs that a single grantor SPID can have. There are currently grantor SPIDs that have multiple delegate SPIDs. Adding delegate SPIDs can signif…
|Currently, service provider SPIDs are allowed to be delegates of other service provider SPIDs. However, no two service provider SPIDs have entered into a delegation arrangement since the delegation …
|When a Delete SV message is sent from the NPAC to the LSMS, it is not clear as to why the number is being removed. The two options are 1.) because the number has been disconnected and is no longer i…
|Population of the AltSPID and Last Alt SPID fields for internal use is a common occurrence and could result in misinterpretation of the entries by other Service Providers that receive this data. Cre…
|Clarification on ONSP Obligations to Remove Translations When 10-Digit Triggers Cannot Be Set
|LSMS Systems are not meeting industry throughput requirements.
|The XIS indicates that systems should accept a schema_version value with a different minor version than the XSD schema version used by the system. However, there are no vendor test cases that verify …
|Given the high-volume porting activity occurring across the industry, there has been an increase in LSMS LNP record growth rate for providers resulting in record capacity issues and concerns.
|Use of NPAC Data for preventing financial fraud is difficult due to missing or potentially inaccurate data. When numbers are given to Virtual Network Operators, it is difficult to find the service p…
|SPID Naming Standards adopted in PIM 117 need further updating to reflect another scenario
|LNP Best Practice 0004 – N-1 Carrier Methodology addresses the FCC requirement that the “N-1” carrier (2nd to last carrier) should perform the number portability database query. FCC 18-95 eased the C…
|As of 2020, the XML interface has been in production for several years. Over the past two years, there has been an increase in the number of systems using the XML interface. Through experience of u…
|Existing Best Practice 0069 indicates that users should inform the LNPA of large ports – defined as 25,000 or more TNs affected per hour – in advance of such porting activity, so that all service pro…