Re: ENUM (e164.arpa): background, scope, and coordination steps
Thank you Richard, this is very helpful context. The pointers to the FCC, ATIS/SIP Forum and BT material are a valuable contribution to the broader community input we are gathering on the current role and relevance of e164.arpa. If there are other particular filings, standards documents or implementation examples that you think are relevant, I would be keen to receive them. Many thanks again for sharing this. Best regards, Hisham On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 at 23:35, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
Patrik .. thank you so much for cc me here. I’m very aware of that the status is of TN to FQDN resolution is. This is under active discussion at the FCC as it is planning on sunsetting the existing TDM / SS7 networks in the United States. I literally had a call with US national carriers about this today. The SIP Forum and ATIS are working this issue as a standards profile issue.
https://access.atis.org/higherlogic/ws/groups/8ba10810-ca63-4d03-8155-018d24...
The British have their own process.
https://business.bt.com/content/dam/bt-business/pdfs/insights/All-IP%20white...
There are endless Federal Communications Commission’s filings on this. You can easily go the FCC website and through ECFS find the dockets. 25-304 25-208 17-97 its all public.
Canada is right behind us.
Once upon a time maybe decade ago RFC 6116 might have been useful, but the carriers and their national regulators have chosen a different path. Numbering is a very very special thing national regulators hold closely. I imagine Sweden is no different. In the US this is governed by national law. UK and European law are similar.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/251
e164.arpa will IMHO have no real role it what the modern all SIP IP network will look like.
BTW the USG could care squat about ITU T thinks about anyting.
Happy to take questions or provide other guidance…
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683
Let me point out one more important thing. There is always "one more thing"... The reason RIPE NCC is hosting E164.ARPA is on request by IAB which in turn is a result of negotiations between IETF/IAB and ITU-T/TSB. And, the fact IAB manages .ARPA. Instructions to RIPE NCC from IAB is lost in cyberspace from the IAB web site, but wayback machine helps us (again): <https://web.archive.org/web/20050225071816/http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/ITU-ENUM.html> See also <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.164-200305-S!Sup4>. Because of this, I think RIPE NCC must consult explicitly with IETF/IAB on these matters. Patrik On 1 Apr 2026, at 4:31, Hisham Ibrahim wrote:
Thank you Richard, this is very helpful context. The pointers to the FCC, ATIS/SIP Forum and BT material are a valuable contribution to the broader community input we are gathering on the current role and relevance of e164.arpa.
If there are other particular filings, standards documents or implementation examples that you think are relevant, I would be keen to receive them. Many thanks again for sharing this. Best regards,
Hisham
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 at 23:35, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
Patrik .. thank you so much for cc me here. I’m very aware of that the status is of TN to FQDN resolution is. This is under active discussion at the FCC as it is planning on sunsetting the existing TDM / SS7 networks in the United States. I literally had a call with US national carriers about this today. The SIP Forum and ATIS are working this issue as a standards profile issue.
https://access.atis.org/higherlogic/ws/groups/8ba10810-ca63-4d03-8155-018d24...
The British have their own process.
https://business.bt.com/content/dam/bt-business/pdfs/insights/All-IP%20white...
There are endless Federal Communications Commission’s filings on this. You can easily go the FCC website and through ECFS find the dockets. 25-304 25-208 17-97 its all public.
Canada is right behind us.
Once upon a time maybe decade ago RFC 6116 might have been useful, but the carriers and their national regulators have chosen a different path. Numbering is a very very special thing national regulators hold closely. I imagine Sweden is no different. In the US this is governed by national law. UK and European law are similar.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/251
e164.arpa will IMHO have no real role it what the modern all SIP IP network will look like.
BTW the USG could care squat about ITU T thinks about anyting.
Happy to take questions or provide other guidance…
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683
Patrik Fältström writes:
Instructions to RIPE NCC from IAB is lost in cyberspace from the IAB web = site, but wayback machine helps us (again):
<https://web.archive.org/web/20050225071816/http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/ITU-ENUM.html>
Just in case it once being the moderator of the old ripe enum maillist, I still have an archive of this list. jaap
participants (3)
-
Hisham Ibrahim -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Patrik Fältström