AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)

[Jürgen Eder <]

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@localhost [
	    
	    
] 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@localhost 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@localhost"
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.
>