AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)
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@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.
Christoph, Christoph Künkel wrote:
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.
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
Hi Folks, inline best regards, Lawrence On 8 Oct 2004, at 08:40, Christoph Künkel wrote:
strange. <extract of SIP RFC elided> no mention of ENUM. typo - c/2/7/ 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. Well... you have a pair of TXT record in there but no NAPTRs, AFAICS: ; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. NAPTR ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 43513 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. ANY ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 62091 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN TXT "for the purpose of ENUM-Trial DE" 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN TXT "innovaphone AG administrator@innovaphone.com" 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN SOA ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. wjontofs.berkom.de. 2004083001 182800 600 3600 120 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 3600 IN A 141.39.29.162 ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 2624 IN AAAA 2001:7a0:100:111::162 ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 3600 IN A 141.39.66.111 ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 2624 IN AAAA 2001:7a0:100:101::155
Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely coupled issues?
Yes, you do miss something.
Regards, Christoph
Earlier, I said:
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.
Hi there, just for clarification I would like to note that there are no NAPTRs for 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. but there are for xyz.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. ;-) Best Regards, Juergen -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: enum-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 11:54 An: Christoph Künkel Cc: Henry Sinnreich; Adrian Georgescu; Carsten Schiefner; enum-wg@ripe.net; Stastny Richard Betreff: Re: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Hi Folks, inline best regards, Lawrence On 8 Oct 2004, at 08:40, Christoph Künkel wrote:
strange. <extract of SIP RFC elided> no mention of ENUM. typo - c/2/7/ 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. Well... you have a pair of TXT record in there but no NAPTRs, AFAICS: ; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. NAPTR ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 43513 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. ANY ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 62091 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN TXT "for the purpose of ENUM-Trial DE" 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN TXT "innovaphone AG administrator@innovaphone.com" 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN SOA ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. wjontofs.berkom.de. 2004083001 182800 600 3600 120 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN NS ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 3600 IN A 141.39.29.162 ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 2624 IN AAAA 2001:7a0:100:111::162 ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 3600 IN A 141.39.66.111 ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 2624 IN AAAA 2001:7a0:100:101::155
Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely coupled issues?
Yes, you do miss something.
Regards, Christoph
Earlier, I said:
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.
participants (4)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Christoph Künkel -
Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) -
Jürgen Eder