Adam, Microsoft's Dynamic Location Routing & trusted IP architecture gets them to being NG911-compliant. It isn't just looking at the IP's geolocation, but rather an administrator can have a workflow that requires the user's external IP to be in the list of defined IPs, and that IP must have a dispatchable location associated to it.
For our current products, CER+CUCM/Jabber/Hybrid Teams calling, these things are all easily solved when the call is going through call control you can control, or PSTN you can control. But when you take away PSTN and call control, you need the software creator to provide the knobs and switches. Presently, Webex Teams + Cloud Calling has no knobs for us engineers to turn. On one hand, Cisco isn't required to solve this problem and customers don't need to be compliant for nomadic users until 2022. I'm sure this is on their radar as Cisco has dedicated quite the landing page to the topic: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/unified-communications/next-gen-karis-law.html but I suspect it is a can that is being kicked down the road, maybe? On the other hand, despite it not being required, I morally feel like we should provide the best information about a 911-caller to get the first responders to the right place, as quickly as possible. But, however it is accomplished, it can't be so burdensome that admins don't deploy it and users won't update it. It is my understanding that a 911 call through a Webex Calling cloud provider will only dispatch to the main corporate address. Perhaps that's fine for a retail store that's wide open and less than 5000 square feet. But I want to do better for facilities like a 40-story office building. ________________________________ From: Pawlowski, Adam <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 8:56 AM To: Mark H. Turpin <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ng911 *** EXTERNAL EMAIL - DO NOT CLICK LINKS *** It is on the list of considerations for sure. If I’m reading (skimmed) Microsoft’s document you linked, this works more or less how the traditional E911 systems work, and do nothing for you for home or roaming users. In a way I am surprised there aren’t some more solutions on the table, but, at the same time these disclaimers and the wording in a lot of the documentation is to try and shy away from any sort of liability. If I go to Bing to figure out how to order a pizza, both it and the pizza places can tell where I am pretty darn close just based on my IP address. You’d think that sort of thing would be a start to a 911 solution, but, it is imperfect, imprecise, and can be wrong – and the liability there may force some to just say, look, we can’t do it – implement at your own risk. Absolutely waiting on this one to be more well developed, but, I hazard that the business address solutions are just fine for SMB and not Enterprise, which holds true for whole hog implementations of these systems in general at the moment. (Costs, ROI, feature set, etc) Adam From: cisco-voip <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mark H. Turpin Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 3:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [cisco-voip] ng911 Is anyone thinking about NG911 compatibility for pure Teams/Webex cloud calling? I understand Intrado/RedSky offerings for CER/on-prem/Jabber/hybrid calling. The Webex Calling terms (https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/doing_business/legal/OfferDescriptions/cisco_collaboration_flex_plan.pdf<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisco.com%2Fc%2Fdam%2Fen_us%2Fabout%2Fdoing_business%2Flegal%2FOfferDescriptions%2Fcisco_collaboration_flex_plan.pdf&data=01%7C01%7Cmturpin%40covene.com%7C59fe26dfa3be44b21e7b08d7e532ae6f%7C575b0cc755204e999cb37affbf511f45%7C1&sdata=jqYcsnYT1TWnXm2KDx8udhhsMoiQl21mDtditUSwqp4%3D&reserved=0>) state pretty clearly Cisco isn't supporting it today. Emergency Response Disclaimer YOUR EMERGENCY RESPONSE LOCATION FOR PURPOSES OF EMERGENCY CALLS IS LIMITED TO YOUR COMPANY ADDRESS. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ADVISE YOUR AUTHORIZED USERS TO ALWAYS PROVIDE THEIR CURRENT LOCATION WHEN CALLING EMERGENCY SERVICES. That disclaimer is fine except when a user is calling 911 and can't speak to provide their address. While Ray Baum's Act isn't in effect yet, it seems like Microsoft might have a leg up on this already with Dynamic Location Routing capabilities via their LIS and trusted IP architecture. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/configure-dynamic-emergency-calling<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fmicrosoftteams%2Fconfigure-dynamic-emergency-calling&data=01%7C01%7Cmturpin%40covene.com%7C59fe26dfa3be44b21e7b08d7e532ae6f%7C575b0cc755204e999cb37affbf511f45%7C1&sdata=8pLX9jYBe8jzu8VCKIRQPYYwWbZHtDnYdZenvEC6K0w%3D&reserved=0> I don't have an answer yet, just starting the conversation. -Mark
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
