October 2004 - enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

strange. I had a quick look at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt and it reads: Network Working Group J. Rosenberg Request for Comments: 3261 dynamicsoft Obsoletes: 2543 H. Schulzrinne Category: Standards Track ... June 2002 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol no mention of ENUM. also, I work in a company that has ENUM enabled. You can call me (+49 7031 73009) via ENUM from the internet and I certainly have no SIP URI. Same goes true for a number of our customers I know of, which are using ENUM in their telephony production environment. Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely coupled issues? Regards, Christoph -----Original Message----- From: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:53 PM To: Adrian Georgescu Cc: Stastny Richard; Carsten Schiefner; Henry Sinnreich; <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Hi Guys, quick point here - ENUM is according to RFC3261. It's AKA "public" ENUM. It *is* available on the Internet. Anything else is "ENUM-like". >> So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do not >> have VoIP.

4 3

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Stastny Richard 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

>>ENUM is 3761 - so just one digit mixed up; and they even look almost the > same. :-) >Happens to me all the time, too... ;-) >> also, I work in a company that has ENUM enabled. You can call me (+49 >> 7031 73009) via ENUM from the internet and I certainly have no SIP URI. >So what kind of URI you are using then - "h323:"? Or "tel:", so that it >is about Internet->PSTN termination? If you look up this domain, you do not find any NAPTR, (only TXT records) so how can I call you? Richard

3 2

AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Lawrence, add just any extension to the trunk base number, e.g. 0.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. See the NAPTR. However, I think you missed my point(s). I was not going to debate wether I have a NAPTR or not. I was just trying to make the point that the original thread implied a tight coupling between ENUM and SIP, where there is none. And that Kapsch certainly is not the first company to be reached with ENUM. :-) Christoph -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] > Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely > coupled issues? > Yes, you do miss something.

2 1

AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
by Christoph Künkel 08 Oct '04

08 Oct '04

Hi Carsten, kind of "Freud'sche Fehlleistung", isnt it ;-) [ does someone volunteer to translate that therm to english? ] Yes, I am using a h323: URI. We do that for more than 6 months now and some of our customers too, using comercially available equipment. My point is that ENUM and SIP are only loosely related. And VoIP is not SIP, as well as H323 is not VoIP. ENUM is neither about H323 nor SIP nor PSTN. It is about associating e164 numbers to various kinds of services (internet related or not, doesnt matter). :-) Christoph -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de] > no mention of ENUM. ENUM is 3761 - so just one digit mixed up; and they even look almost the same. :-) Happens to me all the time, too... > also, I work in a company that has ENUM enabled. You can call me (+49 > 7031 73009) via ENUM from the internet and I certainly have no SIP URI. So what kind of URI you are using then - "h323:"? Or "tel:", so that it is about Internet->PSTN termination? > Same goes true for a number of our customers I know of, which are using > ENUM in their telephony production environment. > > Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely > coupled issues? What _exactly!_ is only loosely coupled here from you PoV? Best, Carsten

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM
by Stastny Richard 07 Oct '04

07 Oct '04

>But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same >page here as I never came across this term before... I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden (.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the Internet. So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do not have VoIP. And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not have a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. regards Richard -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de] Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2004 18:06 An: Stastny Richard Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Hi Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: > but on the other hand this is really the first company I now of > providing public (DIAL) SIP URIs for ALL of their extensions and > putting ALL extensions with Sip and mailto in ENUM. definitions, definitions... :-) But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same page here as I never came across this term before... Cheers - and thanks a bunch, -C.

5 5

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM
by Richard Shockey 07 Oct '04

07 Oct '04

At 07:02 PM 10/6/2004, Stastny Richard wrote: > >But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same > >page here as I never came across this term before... I think I need to get T-Shirts made up here... DIAL URI ! NO URI ! NO SIP! >I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering >the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden >(.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you >with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the Internet. Henry and I have been preaching this at fine VoIP conferences world wide. The issuance of a SIP URI by a SIP service provider is a fundamental definition of a real SIP VoIP service. Now think of someone selling you a email service but does not offer you a email address. What I find totally amazing is that the VoIP service providers in the US and Europe do not understand the "sticky" nature of naming and addressing. How many millions of AOL users stay with the service just because they wont change email addresses. DT....FT, BT certainly must see the same behaivor fon their consumer ISP products etc. I heard that SIP service providers in Europe wouldn't consider confederating using private ENUM because they thought other providers would poach on each others customers. This is total madness. But what else is new. ATT seems to be clueless about this as well..we heard at the SIP summit in Chicago that Vonage was "considering" giving out URI's to its customers ..but no announcement as of yet. This is the opportunity for the biggest land grab by VoIP service providers ever by locking customers into SIP URI's but they seem to want to shoot themselves in the foot by not offering real internet SIP addressing. Mind boggling, madness, just plain stupid ..almost as crazy as well ... invading some middle east country without allies ... >So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do >not have VoIP. > >And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not have >a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. precisely ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM
by Jim Reid 06 Oct '04

06 Oct '04

>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny(a)oefeg.at> writes: Richard> BTW, ALL enumservices used by Kapsch are non-IETF Richard> standard but they are ETSI TS 102 172 standard ;-) The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. :-)

2 1

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM
by Stastny Richard 06 Oct '04

06 Oct '04

>I am a bit baffled about the >quite "ambituous" notion to be the first worldwide to have set that up. >I tend to doubt that a bit... Ok, press departments are always overdoing it a bit ;-) and considering AT43 and even OeFEG ;-) but on the other hand this is really the first company I now of providing public (DIAL) SIP URIs for ALL of their extensions and putting ALL extensions with Sip and mailto in ENUM. Richard -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de] Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2004 11:30 An: Stastny Richard Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Hi Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: > Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM > > Press Release <http://www.kapsch.net/CarrierCom/en/10002_ENU_HTMLExtranetCDEn.htm> thanks for the forward, I already got a pointer to an article in German at: http://pressetext.at/pte.mc?pte=041005002 via a Google Alert late yesterday night. However, - as good as the news itself is - I am a bit baffled about the quite "ambituous" notion to be the first worldwide to have set that up. I tend to doubt that a bit... Anyways and apart from that, I fully agree: congratulations! :-) Best, -C.

2 1

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM
by Richard Shockey 06 Oct '04

06 Oct '04

At 09:13 AM 10/6/2004, Stastny Richard wrote: >BTW, ALL enumservices used by Kapsch are non-IETF standard >but they are ETSI TS 102 172 standard ;-) gurrrrrrrrr <snicker> :-) > >Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM
by Stastny Richard 06 Oct '04

06 Oct '04

BTW, ALL enumservices used by Kapsch are non-IETF standard but they are ETSI TS 102 172 standard ;-) Richard -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk] Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2004 15:01 An: Michael Haberler Cc: Stastny Richard; Angerer Christian; Jakob Schlyter; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Jakob, folks, Tempting as it is to utter a two word response, there is a well known issue with 3264 - to "allow backwards compatibility" (i.e. not make a certain large Router manufacturer's kit obsolescent overnight), you can use sip+E2U as well, so ETSI versus IETF is the least of your problems. We now return you to the adverts. Lawrence On 6 Oct 2004, at 13:27, Michael Haberler wrote: > At 14:15 06.10.2004, Jakob Schlyter wrote: > >> I'm happy to see people deploying this, especially for companies. >> >> on the technical side, do you know why Kapsch uses non-standard NAPTR >> like E2U+voice:sip instead of the one specified by RFC 3764 >> (E2U+sip)? >> >> jakob > > no religious issues here;) the fix as per above is in the code waiting > for the next build > > -Michael -- Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship.

1 0