This strategy still satisfies both
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2024 10:46 am
This way the masking is still seamlessly maintained because the customer always communicates with the same number and so does the business owner. They just happen to be different numbers. The final masking session model looks like this: Like before, there are 2 customers and 2 businesses having a total of 4 unique conversations (masking sessions), but now they are facilitated by 2 pools of 2 proxy numbers each. Each party still sees unique numbers for each of their conversations, but the customer and business in a particular session see distinct proxy numbers (each from their respective pool).
This strategy still satisfies both constraints and keeps costs constant, but lebanon mobile phone numbers database it has the following benefits: Less risk of exhausting numbers: Customer proxy numbers only need to satisfy constraint 1 from the previous section while business numbers only need to satisfy constraint 2. This makes it less likely to run out of proxy numbers to assign to a session. The two constraints become increasingly harder to be satisfied together by a single number the more sessions we create.
Simpler allocation and routing logic: The code is easier to maintain and understand. Greater flexibility: We can configure each number pool independently. For example, each pool can have a different size, a distinct path for webhooks, specific alerting, etc. We could even change the assignment strategy of each pool if necessary, or we can have additional pools if we needed a different assignment strategy for a new participant type. (E.g. having a constant number per business like mentioned above for the customer side for specific subsets of businesses).
This strategy still satisfies both constraints and keeps costs constant, but lebanon mobile phone numbers database it has the following benefits: Less risk of exhausting numbers: Customer proxy numbers only need to satisfy constraint 1 from the previous section while business numbers only need to satisfy constraint 2. This makes it less likely to run out of proxy numbers to assign to a session. The two constraints become increasingly harder to be satisfied together by a single number the more sessions we create.
Simpler allocation and routing logic: The code is easier to maintain and understand. Greater flexibility: We can configure each number pool independently. For example, each pool can have a different size, a distinct path for webhooks, specific alerting, etc. We could even change the assignment strategy of each pool if necessary, or we can have additional pools if we needed a different assignment strategy for a new participant type. (E.g. having a constant number per business like mentioned above for the customer side for specific subsets of businesses).