The ENUM Federation: activities, website etc.
Distribution List: +> bod@enumfederation.org +> ???, enum.at (Austria) +> Pavel Tuma, CZ.NIC (Czech Republic) +> Joerg Schweiger, DENIC (Germany) +> ???, SIDN (Netherlands) +> ???, nominet (United Kingdom) +> enum-wg@ripe.net +> Niall O'Reilly, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair +> Carsten Schiefner, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair +> Patrik Fältström, ENUM inventor === Dear all - first of all, I do hope that you all have had some lovely holidays and could relax and recharge batteries! As you may be aware, I have had some multilateral, but also bilateral talks with some of you wrt. the ENUM Federation and particularly its website at: http://www.enumfederation.org/ As I got it, there have recently some ideas been floated around amongst the BoD members about a very last attempt to give the idea behind the Federation a push. Reasons are, amongst others, that ENUM in the Carrier space gets more and more grip, but also in the public name space with the advent of the NRENUM activities. But although the registration of a phone number as an ENUM domain bears quite some similarity with the usual registration of a domain under a TLD, there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures, even if all other preconditions are fully in place: that is that the registrant would never fully "own" a number where the ENUM domain is derived from - contrary to a classic domain name. There is carrier and geopgraphic number portability in place, of course - however, if one cancels the PSTN service the number comes with the number goes away too. So, the ENUM federation could also be a good place to initiate a discussion about a change in this regulation scheme, for example. Anyhow: I'd see such (re)launch activities quite complementary to what is usually being discussed and done in the ENUM WG, as the focus of the Federaion is much more on the actual promotion of ENUM in a commercial sense, if I am correct. I would be happy to take this up - and what I have heard from Niall sounds very similar. So please consider this email a kick-off to start some meaningful debate how it shoud be proceeded. All the best, Carsten
Dear ENUM WG colleagues - email address auto-completion is not always your friend, it seems. I am sure that it has happened to at least some of you already: now I got hit by it, too. The distribution list should have actually been read <enum-wg-CHAIRS@ripe.net> instead of just <enum-wg@ripe.net> - my sincerest apologies, please ignore my posting below at least for the time being. I am sure that we will have a short notion or update on it under AOB of the upcoming ENUM WG session of the RIPE 65 meeting. All the best, Carsten Schiefner RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair On 27.08.2012 16:56, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
Distribution List:
+> bod@enumfederation.org +> ???, enum.at (Austria) +> Pavel Tuma, CZ.NIC (Czech Republic) +> Joerg Schweiger, DENIC (Germany) +> ???, SIDN (Netherlands) +> ???, nominet (United Kingdom)
+> enum-wg@ripe.net +> Niall O'Reilly, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair +> Carsten Schiefner, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair
+> Patrik Fältström, ENUM inventor
===
Dear all -
first of all, I do hope that you all have had some lovely holidays and could relax and recharge batteries!
As you may be aware, I have had some multilateral, but also bilateral talks with some of you wrt. the ENUM Federation and particularly its website at:
http://www.enumfederation.org/
As I got it, there have recently some ideas been floated around amongst the BoD members about a very last attempt to give the idea behind the Federation a push.
Reasons are, amongst others, that ENUM in the Carrier space gets more and more grip, but also in the public name space with the advent of the NRENUM activities.
But although the registration of a phone number as an ENUM domain bears quite some similarity with the usual registration of a domain under a TLD, there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures, even if all other preconditions are fully in place: that is that the registrant would never fully "own" a number where the ENUM domain is derived from - contrary to a classic domain name. There is carrier and geopgraphic number portability in place, of course - however, if one cancels the PSTN service the number comes with the number goes away too.
So, the ENUM federation could also be a good place to initiate a discussion about a change in this regulation scheme, for example.
Anyhow: I'd see such (re)launch activities quite complementary to what is usually being discussed and done in the ENUM WG, as the focus of the Federaion is much more on the actual promotion of ENUM in a commercial sense, if I am correct.
I would be happy to take this up - and what I have heard from Niall sounds very similar. So please consider this email a kick-off to start some meaningful debate how it shoud be proceeded.
All the best,
Carsten
Hi Carsten!
there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures
There are at least two other ones: - Unless the Telco regulators in each country would enforce ENUM lookup *combined* with rules on pricing (one has to be careful to ask for both; see Austria for example) ENUM will not mean anything to anyone out there in the field. - As long as there is no QoS at all available to the average home or small / medium business user open VoIP is not going to happen, unfortunately. Again, this may be a regulatory issue. I am actually suprised to still see you guys working. I have been an ENUM enthusiast when it came up, but went away when it turned out it's just not going to happen. AFAIK, some delegations have already been passed back to the ITU just because those who had them found out they don't need / don't want them any more. Looking at https://confluence.terena.org/display/NRENum/NRENum.net+service : I guess nobody here cares for a list of ENUM trees for this, that and the other. Also when it says "It's not about free calls, it's about new services", could anyone come up with a real live example? I know two types of people: Skype users who for the sake of it being free accept it's unreliability and couldn't care less about it's non-openness and people who seldom make calls abroad and have a flatrate on their GSM handset. That's 98,5% of the telco voice market. I hate to say it but it's reality. Wasn't there also some system where one would dial 12345 * 67890 where 67890 would be treated like a domain and 12345 would be the "local part" of that phone number? Well, also phone numbers become less and less interesting as people dial contacts on their Smartphone which they sync from their contacts lists anywhere in the cloud. Why don't we just turn to H.323 and use IPv6 addresses as phone numbers if we think we want VoIP. My 2 cents. Sorry, but I am just trying to be realistic. Regards, Torsten -------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:56:54 +0200 Von: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de> An: bod@enumfederation.org, enum-wg@ripe.net, "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> Betreff: [enum-wg] The ENUM Federation: activities, website etc.
Distribution List:
+> bod@enumfederation.org +> ???, enum.at (Austria) +> Pavel Tuma, CZ.NIC (Czech Republic) +> Joerg Schweiger, DENIC (Germany) +> ???, SIDN (Netherlands) +> ???, nominet (United Kingdom)
+> enum-wg@ripe.net +> Niall O'Reilly, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair +> Carsten Schiefner, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair
+> Patrik Fältström, ENUM inventor
===
Dear all -
first of all, I do hope that you all have had some lovely holidays and could relax and recharge batteries!
As you may be aware, I have had some multilateral, but also bilateral talks with some of you wrt. the ENUM Federation and particularly its website at:
http://www.enumfederation.org/
As I got it, there have recently some ideas been floated around amongst the BoD members about a very last attempt to give the idea behind the Federation a push.
Reasons are, amongst others, that ENUM in the Carrier space gets more and more grip, but also in the public name space with the advent of the NRENUM activities.
But although the registration of a phone number as an ENUM domain bears quite some similarity with the usual registration of a domain under a TLD, there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures, even if all other preconditions are fully in place: that is that the registrant would never fully "own" a number where the ENUM domain is derived from - contrary to a classic domain name. There is carrier and geopgraphic number portability in place, of course - however, if one cancels the PSTN service the number comes with the number goes away too.
So, the ENUM federation could also be a good place to initiate a discussion about a change in this regulation scheme, for example.
Anyhow: I'd see such (re)launch activities quite complementary to what is usually being discussed and done in the ENUM WG, as the focus of the Federaion is much more on the actual promotion of ENUM in a commercial sense, if I am correct.
I would be happy to take this up - and what I have heard from Niall sounds very similar. So please consider this email a kick-off to start some meaningful debate how it shoud be proceeded.
All the best,
Carsten
Hi Torsten, On 27.08.2012 17:23, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures
There are at least two other ones:
- Unless the Telco regulators in each country would enforce ENUM lookup *combined* with rules on pricing (one has to be careful to ask for both; see Austria for example) ENUM will not mean anything to anyone out there in the field.
- As long as there is no QoS at all available to the average home or small / medium business user open VoIP is not going to happen, unfortunately. Again, this may be a regulatory issue.
this is IMHO "only" an issue if the ENUM focus is narrowed down to exclusively be a PSTN replacement, saving on phone fees. Personally speaking, I saw this argument going away when more and more telcos started to offer flat fees for at least domestic landline termination. For me, it's more about new and unseen services: I know of a test case where, based on ENUM, photos could be sent as an MMS to landline numbers to appear on eg. picture screens.
I am actually suprised to still see you guys working. I have been an ENUM enthusiast when it came up, but went away when it turned out it's just not going to happen. AFAIK, some delegations have already been passed back to the ITU just because those who had them found out they don't need / don't want them any more.
Looking at https://confluence.terena.org/display/NRENum/NRENum.net+service :
I guess nobody here cares for a list of ENUM trees for this, that and the other. Also when it says "It's not about free calls, it's about new services", could anyone come up with a real live example?
See above. And I won't be surprised at all if the NREN community will be showcasing new ENUM based services shortly to mid term.
I know two types of people: Skype users who for the sake of it being free accept it's unreliability and couldn't care less about it's non-openness and people who seldom make calls abroad and have a flatrate on their GSM handset. That's 98,5% of the telco voice market. I hate to say it but it's reality.
No counter-argueing here... :-)
Wasn't there also some system where one would dial 12345 * 67890 where 67890 would be treated like a domain and 12345 would be the "local part" of that phone number?
Not sure what you mean.
Well, also phone numbers become less and less interesting as people dial contacts on their Smartphone which they sync from their contacts lists anywhere in the cloud. Why don't we just turn to H.323 and use IPv6 addresses as phone numbers if we think we want VoIP.
Not everybody is in a position to use sophisticated smart phones with this, that and the other on board. A larger portion of the global population still uses plain simple mobiles or even landline phones with rotary dialers. We'd be IMHO well advised to not hook them off by replacing long standing identification schemes with something that is only available to a small subset of people. All the best, Carsten Schiefner
On 27.08.2012 17:23, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures
There are at least two other ones:
- Unless the Telco regulators in each country would enforce ENUM lookup *combined* with rules on pricing (one has to be careful to ask for both; see Austria for example) ENUM will not mean anything to anyone out there in the field.
- As long as there is no QoS at all available to the average home or small / medium business user open VoIP is not going to happen, unfortunately. Again, this may be a regulatory issue.
this is IMHO "only" an issue if the ENUM focus is narrowed down to exclusively be a PSTN replacement, saving on phone fees. Personally speaking, I saw this argument going away when more and more telcos started to offer flat fees for at least domestic landline termination. For me, it's more about new and unseen services: I know of a test case where, based on ENUM, photos could be sent as an MMS to landline numbers to appear on eg. picture screens. [RS> ] [RS> ] Well the discussions about industry wide Carrier ENUM in North America are moving pretty well. Both Canada and the US have regulatory moves to turn off classic TDM based POTS and move to all SIP/IMS networks. Cable has led the transitions, enterprise SIP Trunking and now VoLTE G 722 AMR-WB are the drivers for the new numbering databases. ENUM is also being used successfully in advances services for the hearing impaired. This is the Video Relay Service using the iTRS ENUM database run by the US Federal Communications Commission.
I am actually suprised to still see you guys working. I have been an ENUM enthusiast when it came up, but went away when it turned out it's just not going to happen. AFAIK, some delegations have already been passed back to the ITU just because those who had them found out they don't need / don't want them any more.
Looking at https://confluence.terena.org/display/NRENum/NRENum.net+service :
I guess nobody here cares for a list of ENUM trees for this, that and the other. Also when it says "It's not about free calls, it's about new services", could anyone come up with a real live example?
See above. And I won't be surprised at all if the NREN community will be showcasing new ENUM based services shortly to mid term.
I know two types of people: Skype users who for the sake of it being free accept it's unreliability and couldn't care less about it's non-openness and people who seldom make calls abroad and have a flatrate on their GSM handset. That's 98,5% of the telco voice market. I hate to say it but it's reality.
No counter-argueing here... :-)
Wasn't there also some system where one would dial 12345 * 67890 where 67890 would be treated like a domain and 12345 would be the "local part" of that phone number?
Not sure what you mean.
Well, also phone numbers become less and less interesting as people dial contacts on their Smartphone which they sync from their contacts lists anywhere in the cloud. Why don't we just turn to H.323 and use IPv6 addresses as phone numbers if we think we want VoIP.
Not everybody is in a position to use sophisticated smart phones with this, that and the other on board. A larger portion of the global population still uses plain simple mobiles or even landline phones with rotary dialers. We'd be IMHO well advised to not hook them off by replacing long standing identification schemes with something that is only available to a small subset of people. All the best, Carsten Schiefner
On 28/08/12 17:57, Richard Shockey wrote:
Well the discussions about industry wide Carrier ENUM in North America are moving pretty well. Both Canada and the US have regulatory moves to turn off classic TDM based POTS and move to all SIP/IMS networks.
It worth mention another big country, Russia, actually soon should request delegation. As per last meeting at regulatory, this what summary says. We are need few changes at federal law, which is now in work, because of MNP will be mandatory soon. Preferable form is operator ENUM. Most testings done in 2010 in 2011 in test zone, further work are excepted done after delegation of 3.7.e164.arpa, 4.7.e164.arpa, 5.7.e164.arpa, 8.7.e164.arpa, 9.7.e164.arpa and decision who will be coordinate these zones. Here is presentation, [Russian] http://www.slideshare.net/Mincomsvyaz/enum-22-062012
Wow ..LNP again .. that was another one of the early US applications of Carrier ENUM I worked on .. avoid SS7 LNP dips to discover the underlying LRN .. great! Thanks for the data point! Your regulators may be interested in what Canada is doing .. its mandated Carrier ENUM. The discussions in the US are "ongoing" which means during an election cycle they are in suspended animation. Search for CRTC Policy 2012-24 Is the Russian system open or closed as in access only to licensed carriers via VPN? -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nikolay Shopik Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: enum-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [enum-wg] The ENUM Federation: activities, website etc. On 28/08/12 17:57, Richard Shockey wrote:
Well the discussions about industry wide Carrier ENUM in North America are moving pretty well. Both Canada and the US have regulatory moves to turn off classic TDM based POTS and move to all SIP/IMS networks.
It worth mention another big country, Russia, actually soon should request delegation. As per last meeting at regulatory, this what summary says. We are need few changes at federal law, which is now in work, because of MNP will be mandatory soon. Preferable form is operator ENUM. Most testings done in 2010 in 2011 in test zone, further work are excepted done after delegation of 3.7.e164.arpa, 4.7.e164.arpa, 5.7.e164.arpa, 8.7.e164.arpa, 9.7.e164.arpa and decision who will be coordinate these zones. Here is presentation, [Russian] http://www.slideshare.net/Mincomsvyaz/enum-22-062012
On 28.08.2012 18:42, Richard Shockey wrote:
Wow ..LNP again .. that was another one of the early US applications of Carrier ENUM I worked on .. avoid SS7 LNP dips to discover the underlying LRN .. great! Thanks for the data point! Your regulators may be interested in what Canada is doing .. its mandated Carrier ENUM. The discussions in the US are "ongoing" which means during an election cycle they are in suspended animation.
Search for CRTC Policy 2012-24
Yeah I've seen this document in archives not actually read, really good news for our friends at Canada. I doubt this could work out for now, because one of reasons we even have progress it's because it doesn't require lot investment at government side like FSB, who in need to listen calls. Currently this is done by mirroring ISDN port to another ISDN switch at FSB side. Moving to only ENUM IP only, will require changes on their side.
Is the Russian system open or closed as in access only to licensed carriers via VPN?
No decision made about this yet, it seems next step will be when we have delegation. And this not happening until we got new law. This is will be major rewrite [as they said]. Currently VoIP is forbidden if you don't own physical line to client, so ENUM is illegal.
Search for CRTC Policy 2012-24
Yeah I've seen this document in archives not actually read, really good news for our friends at Canada. I doubt this could work out for now, because one of reasons we even have progress it's because it doesn't require lot investment at government side like FSB, who in need to listen calls. Currently this is done by mirroring ISDN port to another ISDN switch at FSB side. Moving to only ENUM IP only, will require changes on their side. [RS> ] [RS> ] It will actually be easier for them as the SIP/IMS traffic is simply forked to any location. Actually the IETF has a whole WG to help the FSB and the FBI/NSA out called SIPREC.. :-)
Is the Russian system open or closed as in access only to licensed carriers via VPN?
No decision made about this yet, it seems next step will be when we have delegation. And this not happening until we got new law. This is will be major rewrite [as they said]. Currently VoIP is forbidden if you don't own physical line to client, so ENUM is illegal. [RS> ] Any status of where LTE is in Russia? Have they auctioned the new spectrum from the analog TV channels?? ... VoLTE I would guess that would be a major trigger right there, it certainly is for Carrier ENUM in the US. Enterprise SIP Trunking Curious ..
On 29.08.2012 0:09, Richard Shockey wrote:
It will actually be easier for them as the SIP/IMS traffic is simply forked to any location. Actually the IETF has a whole WG to help the FSB and the FBI/NSA out called SIPREC.. :-)
Yes I understand that, but this require things like network switches, this stuff too complex for them, and someone have to configure them. Also for example interconnect to Central Bank of Russia is 2xE1 connections :). But thanks for pointers to SIPREC WG, I'll take a look.
[RS> ] Any status of where LTE is in Russia?
Have they auctioned the new spectrum from the analog TV channels?? ... VoLTE I would guess that would be a major trigger right there, it certainly is for Carrier ENUM in the US. Enterprise SIP Trunking Curious ..
None I'm aware of, they just recently (12 june) auction who will be building this network. [http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2012/07/12/4678849.shtml] VoLTE not gonna happens here soon AFAIK, just using 2G network for voice only. There is plan forbid national roaming, which is already big step forward. as its big lobby of major mobile operators here, they trying to squeeze every cent from us.
On 27/08/12 19:23, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
I guess nobody here cares for a list of ENUM trees for this, that and the other. Also when it says "It's not about free calls, it's about new services", could anyone come up with a real live example?
Well it could be used as matter of getting all contact information by knowing just number. This won't work for private use, but for companies seems to be good deal.
Well, also phone numbers become less and less interesting as people dial contacts on their Smartphone which they sync from their contacts lists anywhere in the cloud. Why don't we just turn to H.323 and use IPv6 addresses as phone numbers if we think we want VoIP.
Sure, but you forgot that people still exchange number using their own voice via phone or personally, number still better then name handle. And its because not in every country people understand English alphabet very well and even so numbers just easier/faster to pronounce via phone line.
[Distribution list trimmed: <TSchlabach@gmx.net> and <paf@frobbit.se> deleted, as they are subscribed to <enum-wg@ripe.net> anyways. <bod@enumfederation.org> deleted, as this discussion may be relevant to them as individuals but not as the ENUM Federation's BoD collective.] Hi Nikolay, On 28.08.2012 10:59, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
On 27/08/12 19:23, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
I guess nobody here cares for a list of ENUM trees for this, that and the other. Also when it says "It's not about free calls, it's about new services", could anyone come up with a real live example?
Well it could be used as matter of getting all contact information by knowing just number. This won't work for private use, but for companies seems to be good deal.
that seems to be very similar to what TELNIC proposes with the .tel TLD - in this case it's names not E.164 numbers. But AFAIK the underlying DNS technology is pretty much the same - plus quite enhanced features added in .tel's use case. Best, Carsten
On 27/08/2012 17:23, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
I know two types of people: Skype users who for the sake of it being free accept it's unreliability and couldn't care less about it's non-openness and people who seldom make calls abroad and have a flatrate on their GSM handset. That's 98,5% of the telco voice market. I hate to say it but it's reality.
May I comment this from the National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) community (aka. NRENum.net initiative) point of view. Skype is not for free ;-) In some countries, the NREN pays for the peering traffic that leaves the NREN network to commercial directions. If all university students and academic staff on campus use Skype that can generate a significant amount of peering traffic. NRENs' aim is to keep the (communication) traffic on research networks end-to-end. Unified communication systems with ENUM support can facilitate this. That's how the NRENum.net tree works for our community. BTW, can you please Skype me? Ahh... you don't know my Skype ID. Can you please sync with your contacts? Ahh... I'm not your Facebook friend. Can you just Google for my office number and call me? Ahh... you wanna see my face laughing and dunno how to reach my VC client........ This is the problem space that NRENum.net wants to solve for the academic community.
My 2 cents. Sorry, but I am just trying to be realistic.
So do I ;-) Regards, Peter
Regards, Torsten
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:56:54 +0200 Von: Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de> An: bod@enumfederation.org, enum-wg@ripe.net, "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> Betreff: [enum-wg] The ENUM Federation: activities, website etc.
Distribution List:
+> bod@enumfederation.org +> ???, enum.at (Austria) +> Pavel Tuma, CZ.NIC (Czech Republic) +> Joerg Schweiger, DENIC (Germany) +> ???, SIDN (Netherlands) +> ???, nominet (United Kingdom)
+> enum-wg@ripe.net +> Niall O'Reilly, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair +> Carsten Schiefner, RIPE ENUM WG Co-Chair
+> Patrik Fältström, ENUM inventor
===
Dear all -
first of all, I do hope that you all have had some lovely holidays and could relax and recharge batteries!
As you may be aware, I have had some multilateral, but also bilateral talks with some of you wrt. the ENUM Federation and particularly its website at:
http://www.enumfederation.org/
As I got it, there have recently some ideas been floated around amongst the BoD members about a very last attempt to give the idea behind the Federation a push.
Reasons are, amongst others, that ENUM in the Carrier space gets more and more grip, but also in the public name space with the advent of the NRENUM activities.
But although the registration of a phone number as an ENUM domain bears quite some similarity with the usual registration of a domain under a TLD, there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures, even if all other preconditions are fully in place: that is that the registrant would never fully "own" a number where the ENUM domain is derived from - contrary to a classic domain name. There is carrier and geopgraphic number portability in place, of course - however, if one cancels the PSTN service the number comes with the number goes away too.
So, the ENUM federation could also be a good place to initiate a discussion about a change in this regulation scheme, for example.
Anyhow: I'd see such (re)launch activities quite complementary to what is usually being discussed and done in the ENUM WG, as the focus of the Federaion is much more on the actual promotion of ENUM in a commercial sense, if I am correct.
I would be happy to take this up - and what I have heard from Niall sounds very similar. So please consider this email a kick-off to start some meaningful debate how it shoud be proceeded.
All the best,
Carsten
-- ----------------------------- Project Development Officer TERENA Secretariat Singel 468D, 1017AW Amsterdam The Netherlands T: +31 20 530 4488 F: +31 20 530 4499 http://www.terena.org -----------------------------
Peter and Torsten - although this discusssion only got sparked by my mistake, I start to enjoy it. :-) I guess this is just the kind of meaningful debate and exchange of opinions and views on ENUM matters we should see happening here more often. Best, Carsten On 28.08.2012 11:39, Peter Szegedi wrote:
On 27/08/2012 17:23, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
I know two types of people: Skype users who for the sake of it being free accept it's unreliability and couldn't care less about it's non-openness and people who seldom make calls abroad and have a flatrate on their GSM handset. That's 98,5% of the telco voice market. I hate to say it but it's reality.
May I comment this from the National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) community (aka. NRENum.net initiative) point of view. Skype is not for free ;-) In some countries, the NREN pays for the peering traffic that leaves the NREN network to commercial directions. If all university students and academic staff on campus use Skype that can generate a significant amount of peering traffic. NRENs' aim is to keep the (communication) traffic on research networks end-to-end. Unified communication systems with ENUM support can facilitate this. That's how the NRENum.net tree works for our community.
BTW, can you please Skype me? Ahh... you don't know my Skype ID. Can you please sync with your contacts? Ahh... I'm not your Facebook friend. Can you just Google for my office number and call me? Ahh... you wanna see my face laughing and dunno how to reach my VC client........
This is the problem space that NRENum.net wants to solve for the academic community.
On 27 Aug 2012, at 15:56, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
As you may be aware, I have had some multilateral, but also bilateral talks with some of you wrt. the ENUM Federation and particularly its website at:
http://www.enumfederation.org/
As I got it, there have recently some ideas been floated around amongst the BoD members about a very last attempt to give the idea behind the Federation a push.
Reasons are, amongst others, that ENUM in the Carrier space gets more and more grip, but also in the public name space with the advent of the NRENUM activities.
But although the registration of a phone number as an ENUM domain bears quite some similarity with the usual registration of a domain under a TLD, there is at least one crucial thing that might actually hinder a massive take-up in registration figures, even if all other preconditions are fully in place: that is that the registrant would never fully "own" a number where the ENUM domain is derived from - contrary to a classic domain name. There is carrier and geopgraphic number portability in place, of course - however, if one cancels the PSTN service the number comes with the number goes away too.
So, the ENUM federation could also be a good place to initiate a discussion about a change in this regulation scheme, for example.
Carsten, I wish you and the ENUM Federation every success. However I fear you're flogging a very dead horse. User ENUM is dead. If the ENUM Federation can bring it back to life, good luck! If the ENUM Federation can do that, could you please revive the hamburger meat in my fridge and turn it back into a live cow again? :-) IMO "ownership" of an E.164 number has not been a significant factor in getting User ENUM to fly. Besides, I very much doubt regulators or telcos will be receptive to requests to change current practice which has stood for decades. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. One niche that might be exploited is 3G dongles. These have E.164 numbers (for SMS spam from the provider) but no telephony service as such. I've no idea how ENUM could be used with them though. Even if this perceived ownership barrier was removed, far bigger ones remain. Telcos rely on call termination charges, even VoIP providers. So they won't be keen on losing that revenue if calls to "their" numbers were allowed to terminate at an arbitrary SIP server instead of something buried deep inside the PSTN that generates a billing event. IIUC some VoIP providers stay in business from the termination charges incumbents pay them to deliver calls from the PSTN to their nets. [And watch for the FUD about how a SIP server on the Internet can't be as reliable or secure as the same SIP server run by a telco inside its NGN.] There are similar revenue protection concerns over PSTN break- out from a VoIP provider's net. Another big issue is incumbents generally don't disclose details of their key infrastructure such as where their interconnects and SS7 switches (or equivalents) are located. There's just no way an incumbent is going to publish the names and addresses of their SBCs and what have you on the Internet. The rationale for keeping that information private should be obvious. This is why User ENUM died. The chicken-and-egg problems with ENUM- aware applications and services were another important factor. Enterprise ENUM might work in a controlled (closed?) environment such as a multinational company or maybe the NRENs that have their own numbering plans. And of course Carrier ENUM is doing well for things like number portability and call routing inside the PSTN.
Hi Jim, you disappoint me a bit - I have counted on your contribution much earlier! ;-> On 28.08.2012 12:34, Jim Reid wrote:
[...]
So, the ENUM federation could also be a good place to initiate a discussion about a change in this regulation scheme, for example.
Carsten, I wish you and the ENUM Federation every success. However I fear you're flogging a very dead horse. User ENUM is dead. If the ENUM Federation can bring it back to life, good luck! If the ENUM Federation can do that, could you please revive the hamburger meat in my fridge and turn it back into a live cow again? :-)
You want to have a cow in your fridge?! How unusual... ;->
["ownership" of an E.164 number]
[call termination charges]
[(non-) disclosure of details of their key infrastructure]
[chicken-and-egg problems with ENUM-aware applications and services]
These are all valid arguments that have been considered already and are most likely to be reconsidered again. Still, at this very point, I see - and you may call me a Pollyanna here! :-) - more momentum with ENUM of various flavours than in quite a period of time before. And some activities carried out by the ENUm Federation will hopefully add to this. Cheers and all the best, -C.
--On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:34 +0100 Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 27 Aug 2012, at 15:56, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
As you may be aware, I have had some multilateral, but also bilateral talks with some of you wrt. the ENUM Federation and particularly its website at:
http://www.enumfederation.org/
As I got it, there have recently some ideas been floated around amongst the BoD members about a very last attempt to give the idea behind the Federation a push. ... Carsten, I wish you and the ENUM Federation every success. However I fear you're flogging a very dead horse. User ENUM is dead. If the ENUM Federation can bring it back to life, good luck! If the ENUM Federation can do that, could you please revive the hamburger meat in my fridge and turn it back into a live cow again? :-)
IMO "ownership" of an E.164 number has not been a significant factor in getting User ENUM to fly. Besides, I very much doubt regulators or telcos will be receptive to requests to change current practice which has stood for decades. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. One niche that might be exploited is 3G dongles. These have E.164 numbers (for SMS spam from the provider) but no telephony service as such. I've no idea how ENUM could be used with them though. ...
From a slightly different point of view, user ENUM has not been a failure but a brilliant success for the key element of its design. It institutionalized the TPC (Internet fax) model and showed how it was possible to have an effective and public mechanism that used mostly-conventional Internet tools at the VoIP - PSTN boundary. It would have been quite bad had we not been able to show proof of concept at that boundary. But, if
Hi. Jim and I have a slightly different (but not contradictory) list of reasons why user ENUM failed or never got traction but, otherwise, +1. In the long term, that is probably A Good Thing for users and the Internet. Except for an interesting (and unresolved) internationalization issue, ENUM mostly makes more sense as a transition strategy than as a permanent arrangement. That is for precisely the reasons Jim mentions: E.164 is, in practice, heavily tied to long-standing operational practices, business models. assumptions about "ownership", and other characteristics of the PSTN that don't map nicely onto the Internet (or any other network based on flexible routing of datagrams). To the extent to which we focus on user ENUM (or E.164 generally) as an important element of the Internet going forward, we encourage such things as assumptions or debates about why ITU should have control over peering and routing policies and perhaps even authorization of carriers and services. I hope we all understand why we don't want to go there. the long-term result is that people use VoIP and other Internet-based mechanisms for communication in preference to the PSTN or gateways to the PSTN, that is success, not cause for worrying about bringing user ENUM back to life. Just my opinion, of course. john
From a slightly different point of view, user ENUM has not been a failure but a brilliant success for the key element of its design. It institutionalized the TPC (Internet fax) model and showed how it was
Jim and I have a slightly different (but not contradictory) list of reasons why user ENUM failed or never got traction but, otherwise, +1. In the long term, that is probably A Good Thing for users and the Internet. Except for an interesting (and unresolved) internationalization issue, ENUM mostly makes more sense as a transition strategy than as a permanent arrangement. That is for precisely the reasons Jim mentions: E.164 is, in practice, heavily tied to long-standing operational practices, business models. assumptions about "ownership", and other characteristics of the PSTN that don't map nicely onto the Internet (or any other network based on flexible routing of datagrams). To the extent to which we focus on user ENUM (or E.164 generally) as an important element of the Internet going forward, we encourage such things as assumptions or debates about why ITU should have control over peering and routing policies and perhaps even authorization of carriers and services. I hope we all understand why we don't want to go there. possible to have an effective and public mechanism that used mostly-conventional Internet tools at the VoIP - PSTN boundary. It would have been quite bad had we not been able to show proof of concept at that boundary. But, if the long-term result is that people use VoIP and other Internet-based mechanisms for communication in preference to the PSTN or gateways to the PSTN, that is success, not cause for worrying about bringing user ENUM back to life. Just my opinion, of course. John [RS> ] John .. I totally agree but the odd thing is that 6116 as a carrier numbering database technology is working and working pretty well. The new driver is the end of TDM and SS7 signaling. The Class X gear in the network is literally starting to crumble. The PSTN, at least in North America, is clearly evolving into the Public SIP Network. You are absolutely correct that this is starting to complicate the WCIT discussion. If "telephony" is using IP then ITU-T thinks its theirs.
Richard, John - but isn't this - "telephony" using IP - and/or a transition to it happening right now, at this very moment anyways? Regardless if there is a certain ENUM flavour being used for it or not? So what I am asking is whether ENUM really makes the difference in "encouraging assumptions or debates about why ITU should have control over peering and routing policies and perhaps even authorization of carriers and services", as John has stated. Best, Carsten On 28.08.2012 16:37, Richard Shockey wrote:
[RS> ] John .. I totally agree but the odd thing is that 6116 as a carrier numbering database technology is working and working pretty well. The new driver is the end of TDM and SS7 signaling. The Class X gear in the network is literally starting to crumble. The PSTN, at least in North America, is clearly evolving into the Public SIP Network. You are absolutely correct that this is starting to complicate the WCIT discussion. If "telephony" is using IP then ITU-T thinks its theirs.
[RS> ] John .. I totally agree but the odd thing is that 6116 as a carrier numbering database technology is working and working pretty well. The new driver is the end of TDM and SS7 signaling. The Class X gear in the network is literally starting to crumble. The PSTN, at least in North America, is clearly evolving into the Public SIP Network. You are absolutely correct that this is starting to complicate the WCIT discussion. If "telephony" is using IP then ITU-T
A fine and useful distinction and a excellent question. I often have to describe this to outsiders and the regulators. First its not really Voice over IP as much Voice USING IP. For better or worse the carriers are using all sorts of techniques to maintain what they believe is a mandate for QoS internally as well as across AS boundaries. What the ENUM discussion and frankly the entire VoIP discussion complicates is what is telephony and the desire of the ITU-T to, frankly, remain relevant. Its is an issue. It does complicate the general WCIT discussion over peering routing policies. It doesn't help when these crazy ETNO people go out whining like Ed Whitacre of ATT did here in the US about "Its our pipes" and crying like little children to Brussles "But Google makes too much money Mommy we want some." Sender pays God help us. Its pretty pathetic from this side of the pond. Of course the regulatory environment in Europe is different but the major North American carriers have essentially said .. "whatever". They have started to figure out you can make reasonable money by just moving bits. The current experience in carrier managed VoIP is that the peering and routing agreements for SIP real time traffic are entirely different from the classic IP traffic transit/peering agreements. Even the Layer 1 interconnection is different. The GSM carriers essentially say the same thing with IPX but it hasn't deployed much yet. This layer of discussion tends to play into the hands of the ITU types who do argue that telephony IS their sand box and since telephony is moving to IP they need to have some role in Internet Governance. -----Original Message----- From: enum-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Carsten Schiefner Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:02 AM To: Richard Shockey; 'John C Klensin' Cc: 'RIPE ENUM WG' Subject: Re: [enum-wg] The ENUM Federation: activities, website etc. Richard, John - but isn't this - "telephony" using IP - and/or a transition to it happening right now, at this very moment anyways? Regardless if there is a certain ENUM flavour being used for it or not? So what I am asking is whether ENUM really makes the difference in "encouraging assumptions or debates about why ITU should have control over peering and routing policies and perhaps even authorization of carriers and services", as John has stated. Best, Carsten On 28.08.2012 16:37, Richard Shockey wrote: thinks its theirs.
participants (7)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Jim Reid -
John C Klensin -
Nikolay Shopik -
Peter Szegedi -
Richard Shockey -
Torsten Schlabach