- enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: U.S. Provider ENUM Trial Announced
by Niall O'Reilly 19 May '06

19 May '06

On 18 May 2006, at 18:39, Mulberry, Karen wrote: > I thought you might find the following US ENUM LLC Press Release > of interest for future ENUM discussions at RIPE. Thanks, Karen. Exciting news! I expect that people on the RIPE WG mailing list will find it more convenient to have a pointer to the announcement (if I'm not mistaken, this would be http://enumllc.com/ProviderTrial.htm) rather than a fancy mail with attachments. Whenever you have more news to share with us, please feel free to post directly to the list. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Co-Chair, RIPE ENUM Working Group

1 0

ENUM provisioning platform for 0.4.e164.arpa top level domain
by Adrian Georgescu 15 May '06

15 May '06

ANISP, the Romanian Internet Service Provider Association http:// www.anisp.ro representing more than 40 service providers (http:// www.anisp.ro/?c=membri) will build a provisioning system for the ENUM tree 0.4.e164.arpa. The Romanian ENUM exchange will be hosted in two RoNIX locations (Romanian Network for Internet eXchange) and will be backed up by an infrastructure hosted within the European backbone. The 0.4.e164.arpa is under the authority of the Romanian regulatory body ANRC, which by end of this year planned to define the final procedures of delegation and administration of the public ENUM tree 0.4.e164.arpa. A press release is available at: http://www.sipcenter.com/sip.nsf/newsview? open&type=News&docid=WEBB6PNKZT Adrian Georgescu AG Projects

2 1

Delegation of 9.3.e164.arpa / ENUM DNS Quality
by Otmar Lendl 05 May '06

05 May '06

Folks, domain: 9.3.e164.arpa descr: Italy ENUM Mapping nserver: dns.istsupcti.it nserver: dns2.istsupcti.it remarks: Ministero delle Comunicazioni - http://www.comunicazioni.it remarks: Istituto Superiore delle Comunicazioni e delle tecnologie dell'Informazione remarks: http://www.iscom.gov.it but: ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> 9.3.e164.arpa ns @dns.istsupcti.it ;; global options: printcmd ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached and ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> 9.3.e164.arpa ns @dns2.istsupcti.it ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4925 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;9.3.e164.arpa. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: arpa. 3600 IN SOA ns1.istsupcti.it. administrator.istsupcti.it. 2006022816 900 600 86400 3600 -------------- Some people seem to view that as they only run a trial (if at all) on their ENUM country-code delegation, nameserver performance and reliability does not matter. This is wrong. ENUM is in production in other countries. A lot of SIP proxies query e164.arpa for all calls to E.164 numbers. That includes calls to countries where ENUM is not in production yet. Calls to Italy are thus running into a DNS timeout. This is not good. So please: Even if you are not in production with your country-code: PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR NAMESERVERS ANSWER. EVEN IF ALL THEY EVER SEND IS NXDOMAIN. Thank you. /ol -- < Otmar Lendl (lendl(a)nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >

2 3

European ENUM in London
by me1-telecoms 05 May '06

05 May '06

FOR YOUR NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO CATCH UP WITH ENUM DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE AND TO LEARN AND SHARE WITH YOUR PEERS.........COME TO LONDON IN JUNE. You should join the Marcus Evans ENUM AND VOIP PEERING FORUM in London, UK. 19-21 June. This is an outstanding event regarding ENUM and related questions such as VoIP Peering and IP Interconnect. Many of the key European players in this arena will be present. The two days are really packed with information, so if you are really interested, read the Programme PDF attached and contact our Sales Hotline if you want to register. Sales Hotline: 0044 (0)207 647 2333 Contact Email: me1-telecoms(a)marcusevansuk.com Programme PDF <<ENUM ME LONDON 2006.pdf>>

2 1

European ENUM in London
by me1-telecoms 04 May '06

04 May '06

FOR YOUR NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO CATCH UP WITH ENUM DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE AND TO LEARN AND SHARE WITH YOUR PEERS.........COME TO LONDON IN JUNE. You should join the Marcus Evans ENUM AND VOIP PEERING FORUM in London, UK. 19-21 June. This is an outstanding event regarding ENUM and related questions such as VoIP Peering and IP Interconnect. Many of the key European players in this arena will be present. The two days are really packed with information, so if you are really interested, read the Programme PDF attached and contact our Sales Hotline if you want to register. Sales Hotline: 0044 (0)207 647 2333 Contact Email: me1-telecoms(a)marcusevansuk.com Programme PDF <<ENUM ME LONDON 2006.pdf>>

2 1

Re: [enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work
by Jim Reid 01 May '06

01 May '06

On Apr 28, 2006, at 07:58, Michael Haberler wrote: > I'm a bit puzzled though about your slides where you mention > "CRUE" (Carrier Registration in User ENUM) and its potential > international interoperability aspects. > > currently the IETF work on Infrastructure ENUM is progressing > nicely - I expect the long-run solution to be a separate apex (like > ie164.arpa for instance) and http://www.enum.at/ietf/draft-haberler- > carrier-enum-02.html will be the backwards-compatible interim > solution until ITU and friends have their act together. Looks like > all this is done this year. This will provide a easy manageable > home for carrier-related information. Michael, CRUE has no bearing whatsoever on Infrastructure ENUM. This will be apparent when the CRUE document is published on the new UK ENUM web site. [I'll make an announcement about that when it goes on- line.] The object of CRUE is to get lots of meaningful data into the UK ENUM tree so that ENUM-aware applications can be encouraged because there's a better chance of getting a successful ENUM lookup. The scheme is simple. Communications Service Providers register a block of numbers. This gets verified against the regulator's public database of block allocations to CSPs. The registry enters 2 NAPTRs for these numbers: a tel: URI and a sip: URI. The only "control" the CSP has here is the name of the SIP server: ie how non-PSTN calls can be terminated on their network. Now there's a lot of detail about ported numbers, allocation to end users and so forth. But that still doesn't make CRUE a replacement for "Infrastructure ENUM" whatever that happens to mean today. BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole. > I'm a bit concernced about diverging developments - maybe you can > enlighten us where you're heading and how this will interoperate > with the rest of us. CRUE is not a "standard". Or a protocol. It's just a means to get lots of NAPTRs populating the 4.4.e164.arpa name space. So there are no interoperability issues.

2 4

RE: [enum-wg] Follow up on Karen Mulberry's presentation today
by Mulberry, Karen 01 May '06

01 May '06

Niall, The TPAC will send their reports to the CC1 ENUM LLC. It will be up to the LLC to make those reports public. I suspect that since the LLC has an obligation to send those reports to all the CC1 North American Numbering Plan countries that they will be made public and accessible to everyone who is interested in the US trial's progress. Karen Mulberry Neustar Inc. -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Niall O'Reilly Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:35 AM To: Mulberry, Karen Cc: Niall O'Reilly; Carsten Schiefner; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Follow up on Karen Mulberry's presentation today On 30 Apr 2006, at 22:02, Mulberry, Karen wrote: > Also the TPAC will produce reports on its trial activities on a > monthly > basis for the CC1 ENUM LLC. Is it planned to publish these monthly as they are produced, or will they be kept internal to the CC1 ENUM LLC? /Niall

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] Follow up on Karen Mulberry's presentation today
by Mulberry, Karen 01 May '06

01 May '06

Carsten, My responses Q1: The number resources the FCC is meant to set aside for the ENUM trial - will they cover all US geographic area codes or is that somehow limited? If so, what will be the limits or restrictions? The US trial committee participants are identifying the geographic areas (NPAs) and the amount of numbers they require to conduct their ENUM test cases. Since the FCC has not responded to the wavier request with any restrictions or limits, there are none that I am aware of at this time. Trial participants do not expect to have limits placed on them beyond what the USG terms and conditions called for - that all numbers to be used in the US ENUM trial must be allocated under wavier by the FCC. Q2: In slide 5, 9 and 10 you mention the "Trial Participants Advisory Committee (TPAC)", what roles will be involved when in the trial and what documentation TPAC is meant to produce. I just wonder to what extent the users - aka. number holders, aka. ENUM domain name registrants - will be involved, as they seem to not be mentioned explicitly? The trial MOU calls for trial participants to identify what role or roles they intend to play in the US trial. The ones that I outlined in my presentation are the options that a trail participant can choose from. Such as number holders are identified as End Users and ENUM Domain Name Registrants once they have been authenticated and verified. There are several parties that have indicated that they intend to be End Users for the trial. Also the TPAC will produce reports on its trial activities on a monthly basis for the CC1 ENUM LLC. Initially these reports should contain the organizational plans (who is playing what role(s)) and test case development associated with the three phases of the trial. Once the trial starts, I expect that the monthly reports will contain the results of the tests that have been run during that month. Once the trial has ended, a final report that summarizes all activities and results will be complied for the LLC. Karen Mulberry Neustar Inc. -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Carsten Schiefner Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:50 AM To: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [enum-wg] Follow up on Karen Mulberry's presentation today [Background: Karen Mulberry gave a presentation on "Country Code 1 and the US ENUM Trial" this afternoon during the ENUM WG session, currently available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/uploads/Thursday /mulberry-country_code_1_and_the_us_enum_trial.pps - the following questions relate to that presentation] Karen, I have two questions in relation to your presentation: Q1: The number resources the FCC is meant to set aside for the ENUM trial - will they cover all US geographic area codes or is that somehow limited? If so, what will be the limits or restrictions? Q2: In slide 5, 9 and 10 you mention the "Trial Participants Advisory Committee (TPAC)", what roles will be involved when in the trial and what documentation TPAC is meant to produce. I just wonder to what extent the users - aka. number holders, aka. ENUM domain name registrants - will be involved, as they seem to not be mentioned explicitly? Thanks, Carsten

2 1

Re: [enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work
by Stastny Richard 30 Apr '06

30 Apr '06

Hi Jim, >BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM >can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole. For terminolgy: Carrier ENUM needs not to be standardized, it is Infrastructure ENUM. I agree that the long-term soltution cannot be standardized this year, because the earliest (optimistic) possible date is January 2007 JWhat Michael wanted to say is that the temporary solution defined in the Dallas treaty can be nationally implemented soon (as you will see) and could be ready for publication request this fall, so it could be used also internationally in a standadized way. Another question for clarification about CRUE: You mention that for each number a tel and an sip URI is entered. this requires each operator to provide a ingress element to their network How can this be done? Richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von Jim Reid Gesendet: Fr 28.04.2006 10:26 An: Michael Haberler Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work On Apr 28, 2006, at 07:58, Michael Haberler wrote: > I'm a bit puzzled though about your slides where you mention > "CRUE" (Carrier Registration in User ENUM) and its potential > international interoperability aspects. > > currently the IETF work on Infrastructure ENUM is progressing > nicely - I expect the long-run solution to be a separate apex (like > ie164.arpa for instance) and http://www.enum.at/ietf/draft-haberler- > carrier-enum-02.html will be the backwards-compatible interim > solution until ITU and friends have their act together. Looks like > all this is done this year. This will provide a easy manageable > home for carrier-related information. Michael, CRUE has no bearing whatsoever on Infrastructure ENUM. This will be apparent when the CRUE document is published on the new UK ENUM web site. [I'll make an announcement about that when it goes on- line.] The object of CRUE is to get lots of meaningful data into the UK ENUM tree so that ENUM-aware applications can be encouraged because there's a better chance of getting a successful ENUM lookup. The scheme is simple. Communications Service Providers register a block of numbers. This gets verified against the regulator's public database of block allocations to CSPs. The registry enters 2 NAPTRs for these numbers: a tel: URI and a sip: URI. The only "control" the CSP has here is the name of the SIP server: ie how non-PSTN calls can be terminated on their network. Now there's a lot of detail about ported numbers, allocation to end users and so forth. But that still doesn't make CRUE a replacement for "Infrastructure ENUM" whatever that happens to mean today. BTW I don't share your optimism that standardisation of Carrier ENUM can be completed this year. But let's not jump down that rat-hole. > I'm a bit concernced about diverging developments - maybe you can > enlighten us where you're heading and how this will interoperate > with the rest of us. CRUE is not a "standard". Or a protocol. It's just a means to get lots of NAPTRs populating the 4.4.e164.arpa name space. So there are no interoperability issues.

3 3

RE: [enum-wg] Follow up on Jim Reid's presentation - CRUE and relation to IETF work
by Stastny Richard 30 Apr '06

30 Apr '06

> But let's assume that happens - what is the semantics of such a SIP > URI for a) an end user and b) an operator - can I bounce a call to > sip:number@bt.com if I find <number> in 4.4.e164.arpa and it returns > such a registry-entered sip URI? Can I (do I need to?), as a > end-user, distinguish who entered which record? What if I have a IP > Interconnect agreement with BT / what if not? I would assume BT might > have an opinion here.. Tony? IMHO this could only work, especially in User ENUM, if this Sip?:number@bt.com;user=phone is used purely to indicate a Service Provider ID (SPID). The domain name given is not resolvable in the public DNS, only within the providers DNS (as proposed yesterday by GSMA with the Local Routing Tables (LRT). One way to clearly distinguish from routable SIP entries would be to use an new enumservice called e.g. SPID to indicate that the domain name has to be resolved by other means. In this case the users may simply ignore enumservice spid because they cannot use it. This enumservise may also be useful in Infrastructure ENUM to distinguish between ENUM entries routable on the public Internet and pure SPID entries (e.g. gsmaworld.com) Richard

2 1