Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM
Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Press Release <http://www.kapsch.net/CarrierCom/en/10002_ENU_HTMLExtranetCDEn.htm> Kapsch has deployed a SIP Server giving access to the whole company phone system (with a DIAL URI ;-) and placed all extensions into ENUM. If you want to give it a try, do an ENUM Lookup <http://193.80.173.26:8080/elookup/> The pilot number is +4350811, which gives you the switschboard (+4350811-0 also gives you the switchboard, as usual in Austria and Germany. DDI extensions are 4 digits, e.g. +4350811-3184 (try it, surprise ;-) The query gives back the SIP URI "sip:ext@kapsch.net, the e-mail address "mailto:firstname.lastname@kapsch.net the webpage of the company "http://www.kapsch.net" and the same number as tel URI (obviously for H323 clients) Congratulations!
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.
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
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
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
participants (5)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) -
Jakob Schlyter -
Michael Haberler -
Stastny Richard