Working Group: ENUM
WG Chairs: Carsten Schiefner, Niall O'Reilly
Scribe: Alex le Heux
Date: 18 November 2010
Time: 14:00 - 16:30
A: Administrative Matters (5 min)
- Chat monitor
- Microphone etiquette
B: Finalise Minutes of ENUM WG at RIPE 60 (2 min)
Minutes not finalised, there was one request for clarification. Niall, Carsten and Peter Koch will work on that.
ACTION ITEM: ENUM-AP-61.1 - Niall O'Reilly, Carsten Schiefner, Peter Koch - Clarify point from RIPE 60 minutes.
C: Review Action List
No action items from last meeting.
D: Main Presentations
D1: Shared International Network +883 5100 - Rodrigue Ullens (30 min)
Ricardas Pocius from Mano Numeris asked about the number portability database and if it defines how number portability should be done in a country. He added that they use a centralised model in Lithuania. He further commented that Rodrigue is using a wildcard URI in their delegated space and always writing to SIP proxies and that they can filter out what can be done.
Rodrigue asked if Ricardas thought this was bad.
Ricardas replied that he didn't think it was a good idea because it restricts how SIP can be used. He added that anti-spam, insert traffic, breaks SIP in many ways, it's complicated and not the best way to do it.
Rodrigue asked Ricardas if he was from a regulator.
Ricardas replied that they were an independent company.
Rodrigue asked if Ricardas believed that people should find a way to completely delegate the ENUM numbers or delegations to the End Users and what the business model would be for the telcos there.
Ricardas said he didn't know.
Rodrigue commented that maybe he could charge per number.
Ricardas replied that he believers it's just a registry business and that if he wants to add some value, maybe he should allow his users to add these records.
Carsten Schiefner from DeNIC and ENUM WG co-chair, asked where the notion comes from that the requirement is there for central number portability database. He said he hasn't heard of an EC requirement.
Rodrigue said there is none for a centralised database, just for portability.
Carsten asked how Rodrigue managed to get +8835100 in the global PSTN routing space because from what he heard from his Austrian peers, it was really difficult to get 720 and 780 number space routed everywhere.
Rodrigue answered that it wasn't complete, that it's an ongoing process that will take years. He said they try to push on demand and create services and that's why they wanted a number range with sub-allocation, so they are not pushing alone.
Carsten commented that Voxbone seemed to be a resellers company and that they didn't have any direct customers but only provide that service to other resellers.
Rodrigue confirmed this.
Carsten asked if the interim procedures for 883 were made up only when they requested it or if they were there before when the number space was created.
Rodrigue replied that they were already there before.
Carsten then asked how the called party would be identified if its always the same SIP proxy in the ENUM tree.
Rodrigue said he didn't know and that he'd have to check internally.
Klaus Darilion from nic.at commented that Google Voice is popular because it offers free calls in to PSTN, not because it uses phone numbers for the addressing. He asked Rodrigue if he puts the numbers registered by his customers in the pubic ENUM tree and if it was really a public view.
Rodrigue replied that today the whole range is publicly visible.
Klaus then commented that it's only a closed trial only for Rodrigue's customers and they have the delegations in your ENUM but they always point to his SIP proxy. So, there is no information inside ENUM, it's always the same. The customer can always forward the call directly to their session for the controller and that he already does the routing internally, so there is no benefit in using ENUM. He added that maybe the old telcos want that, and maybe they're afraid to be openly connected. He said it looked a bit strange to him.
Rodrigue replied that you could send it directly to the SIP proxy. He added that they add another way to know where the destination is by making an ENUM query and that before this was not possible. He clarified that when he says it's "closed", he means that only providers can get delegation. Everyone in the world can connect to our numbers, before it was completely closed. Now only allocation is private, calls are open.
Klaus said he wondered if Rodrigue's customers are interested in 883, and that everyone wants a geographic phone number in Austria. The VOIP providers are only allowed 720 and 780 numbers, and they are very expensive from some networks so no one wants it. They don't know how much it costs so everyone is afraid to call.
Rodrigue replied that the goal is not to create a new number to replace their number with 883, that it's more to try to innovate on new services and create free reachability. He added that outside of that group, there's a fee that can be very high. He said he sees it more as an R&D concept and that the main interest belongs in the VOIP providers that contact each other not via the PSTN.
Klaus commented that if there was no termination fees between the carriers then everyone would ask "why do you charge me?". He said they're happy to have the termination costs high. Traffic is identical in and out, zero cost.
Rodrigue replied that he thinks it will go to zero and that it might be irrelevant in some cases. It went down in the fixed network and in a lot of countries it goes down. He said that it couldn't go any lower in the UK, even on the mobile side. He said it's also being pushed down by the regulators and gave the example of Belgium, where the regulator decided
that by 2012 the rates will be three times lower. He added that carriers may be more willing to terminate without a fee, and that mobile makes the most money. In the past carriers would never create services that might harm that revenue. He gave another example that at O2 in the UK, there is a new service that allows a number from a remote country
forwarded on your mobile phone and that this never existed in the past, it might harm termination rate fees but that's less of a concern now.
Klaus commented that in Austria, mobile termination fees were also going down, and that the use of fixed lines decreased, so they get more expensive. He commented about his last comment about anti-spam techniques, that he thinks it's annoying when you call and you always have to dial some things. He said they never had a spam issue in Austria and that the real problem is brute force attacks against SIP proxies to use as free termination. This often causes denial of service, it's too much traffic.
Rodrigue asked Klaus if was used much in Austria.
Klaus replied that Austrians aren't interested in VOIP because mobile is so cheap, but it was popular in Germany. He added that service providers like the idea of open connectivity, but there is not really a business case for it.
Ricardas Pocius from Mano Numeris commented that nic.at was allocating space to other European countries and asked Klaus if he wanted to remove some of the outgoing costs.
Klaus said no.
Ricardas replied that he would talk to Klaus later about getting into a contractual relationship.
D2: ENUM in Lithuania - Ricardas Pocius (15 min)
Klaus Darilion from nic.at asked if they make delegations to customer name servers or if they stored them directly in the tier 1 name server.
Ricardas replied that their service allows to enter any type of record, or users can request to delegate to their own name servers.
Klaus asked if they could just enter a NAPTR or NS record.
Ricardas said yes, it's their choice.
Klaus said he didn't understand the concept of "personal number". Ricardas said it's a nomadic number that has a prefix which gets extended a lot of times.
Klaus asked if he lived in Lithuania and wanted the ENUM domain for his mobile number, if it would not be personal number.
Ricardas replied that any qualified number can be delegated.
Klaus asked if it was a pure user ENUM or carrier ENUM and who was allowed to register a number.
Ricardas replied that they can't populate any data that does not come from a subscriber. He said they branched in the public tree that they use for testing.
Klaus commented that it sounded like what they had in Austria: a pure user ENUM and a branch reserved for carriers which is still empty.
Ricardas said they don't provide an interface for providers, that was just a test case.
Niall O'Reilly commented that these discussions show how the ENUM business is slowly expanding.
E: ENUM Operations
E1: Tier-0 Report - Anand Buddhev, RIPE NCC (15 min)
Niall O'Reilly discusses NRENUM
Niall O'Reilly commented that most of these queries come from Portugal and asked Anand if this was the case for other country codes.
Anand Buddhev from the RIPE NCC answered that most came from Portugal.
Klaus Darilion from nic.at asked how safe it is to query this NRENUM and if any validation is done.
Niall said Klaus should speak to FCCN because they are one of the important players. He added that it seems to be a private club of NRENS and it was their customers who decided to do this.
Klaus said that he knows of some other trees where it is easy to enter and that one day they had a delegation in one of those trees, and in another tree there was an entry for 0800. He added that other companies also provided free routing to free numbers. They could record calls, etc. So he only queries e164.arpa now.
Niall told Klaus he could give him the email address of someone who knows more.
ACTION ITEM 61.2 - Carsten Schiefner - Get more information on NRENUM.
F: Short News
F1: enumdata.org Update - Niall O'Reilly (10 min)
G: Discussion on Plenary Presentations
Placeholder for 'G': nothing planned this time
X: Interaction with Other Working Groups
Denesh Bhabuta, speaking independently, commented that people aren't interested in ENUM because of cheap mobile calls. He asked what they were trying to do here, why they promote this when the user doesn't care about the technology. He said they just want a service. He asked if this means that the working group needs to rethink their strategy. He asked
what was holding the group back, and that they talk but don't do anything. He added that there was no collaboration or open and honest discussion about what is wrong. He said something needed to be done, and nothing has happened since 2005 or 2006.
Carsten Schiefner replied that they are discussing it, that ENUM is a technology, not a service. He acknowledged that on the other hand, Denesh was right. He said he doesn't see how service providers take the technology and build a service and that the idea was the same as with domain names, the customer comes with his phone number and the service
provider does the rest. He added that this hasn't happened and that he doesn't have an answer.
Denesh suggested having a panel in the working group, get some registries together and openly discuss this and come to some solution or way forward.
Niall O'Reilly asked if Denesh wanted this as an action item and work with C&N to make it happen.
Denesh said he did, if he had Niall's backing.
Niall said he had his backing.
ACTION POINT ITEM 61.3 - Denesh Bhabuta: Organise a panel
Z: Close (5 min)
Summary of action items:
Action Item: ENUM-AP-61.1 - Niall O'Rielly, Carsten Schiefner and Peter Koch to clarify point from RIPE 61 minutes.
Action Item: ENUM-AP-61.2 - Carsten Schiefner to get more information on NRENUM.
Action Item: ENUM-AP-61.3 - Denesh Bhabuta to organise a panel.
Niall and Carsten closed the session.