Hi Chris, Chris Heinze wrote:
[currently large regional blocks are reallocated by voip gateway providers to voip-users. so a voip-user from e.g. dresden can have a number from e.g. duesseldorf, hamburg, berlin, munich - or all of them.]
[of some major concern to the regulator]
yes - actually (except for some endusers that consider it fun to have numbers from different cities) i know of nobody who is really happy with this solution,
you just have found the first person then. :-) My crowd back in Berlin happily rings me up with my Berlin VoIP number whereever I am.
[...] it's hardly optimal to dial +4932.... or any other cc-number to reach a user who is currently in helsinki and might be in hongkong tomorrow...
I guess, for Germans callers it would :-) - in particular if any +4932 call from the PSTN is deemed to be local and dumped onto the Internet ASAP. And if I am able to get a grip on other CCs with similar ranges and rules, I am able to satisfy the needs of my counterparts there, too.
as an international prefix could be seen as a public resource that has to be available in a non-discriminating way, i beleive personal numbers assigned to the endusers are again the most straightforward solution.
Indeed, you are right - at the end of the day, what I outlined above might be only a mid-term solution. Then again, you also want to be reachable from the PSTN - and as Richard Stastny said, deploying a new CC in the global PSTN seems to be really a drag...
hm, right, 100% ack. but maybe that's just my bad explanation in the proposal, the idea was to allocate blocks to providers to keep administrative work at the rir level low, while every single number stays portable by using the hierarchical means provided by whois: if a single number out of the provider-allocated block is ported, the maintainer is changed to the new provider as well as the enum-delegation (see collection of 'most specific' nameserver info in the proposal). this way every number would stay portable.
So who then would be in charge of the database of ported numbers: the RIR? Many DBs, one maintained by each ITSP that got the block allocated originally?
[ensure portability/assigning a number directly to the user]
from my view this would be the most charming solution - but creating a lot of work on the rir level is not an option, and currently i don't know of a practical solution to that... hmm...
On the "handling the workload" issue it might be helpful to get an opinion from an/the RIR[s] itself/themselves, I guess.
right... hmm... maybe without allocation of blocks to providers, but allocation of a 'number of (not specific phone-)numbers' could work. actually that would already be a kind of AW-solution. hm. sounds realistic to me, while work at the rir-level were still rather low.
I am afarid I lost you here - what do you mean with a 'number of (not specific phone-)numbers'? Even the comparision with an AW didn't help... Cheers, -C.