Re: AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...

[Jim Reid <]

>>>>> "lwc" == Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) lwc@localhost writes:

    lwc> Hi Jim, Richard, folks, I beg to differ with my esteemed
    lwc> colleague Jim. I would be very surprised if an end user's
    lwc> terminal queried carrier anything, and would be even more
    lwc> surprised if it received a response. This is akin to
    lwc> suggesting that if my phone fired off an INAP query it would
    lwc> receive a response. With SCTP it might be theoretically
    lwc> possible, but I don't expect anyone would be listening.

This is undoubtedly true in the current telephony world. Something I
remain in a state of blissful ignorance about. However the trend is
towards smarter edge devices -- mobile phones that double as PDAs,
video phones (over broadband?), soft phones on laptops with GPRS or
802.11 cards, etc. Going forward, there may well be a lot more
interaction between edge devices and the core network. Maybe in 5-10
years my deal old mum will buy a shiny new "steam" phone that has a
SIP client under the bonnet which talks to her telco provider's core
net.

    lwc> In the "new wine in old skins" world of NGNs, the
    lwc> infrastructure might make queries as part of a routing
    lwc> process, and one service provider would almost certainly get
    lwc> a different answer from the one responsible for the target
    lwc> resource (i.e. the "destination" service provider will
    lwc> probably be running a split horizon system), but would my SIP
    lwc> phone get ANY such information?

That would obviously depend on what net your SIP phone is connected
to. Maybe we end up with a forest of e164.arpa trees, one on the
internet and one internal to each operator?

    lwc> I sure hope that their infrastructure doesn't roam - the bean
    lwc> counters would not be happy.

Well the core network had better not move about. Satellites excepted
of course. :-)