You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

RE: New number ranges for E.164

  • To: < >
    "Adrian Georgescu" < >
  • From: "Christian de Larrinaga" < >
  • Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:19:34 -0000
  • Cc: "Stastny Richard" < >
    < >
    < >
    < >
    < >
    < >
    < >


In UK Ofcom are also suggesting a number range for "Voice over Broadband" in
No thought to ENUM had been given so I did pitch in that ENUM users would
want numbers. Those of us in UK ENUM trials might like to consider this

One thing that was interesting is the large number of potential VoB
providers coming into the consumer market who are lobbying Ofcom forcefully
for "geographic" numbers to allocate to their VoB users.

Ofcom has asked these people to strongly justify this demand on basis that
it will cause number depletion in geographic numbers with about 16 exchanges
needing a number extension, and that geographic pstn numbers have routing

There are obvious validation and autentication implications of a seeing pstn
numbers being allocated from a few select operatos to a hundred possible a
thousand companies issuing geographic telephone numbers to broadband users
who are off DQ and who want to use ENUM.

Again worth pondering by UK ENUM trial. The consultation responses need to
be in for 24 March.


Christian de Larrinaga
Network Brokers Ltd

VoB Voice over Broadband is not clearly defined. The closest one can get is
a telephone service over an always on IP service typically DSL using a POTS
phone (via an AT style gateway) or IP phone largely indistinguishable from a
POTS phone but not PATS. (public access telephony provisions). i.e., no
emergency call numbers etc.

It is instructive to note that Ofcom are thinking of IP media services
delivery in terms of "telephony" language rather than Internet. This
intersetingly is also echoed by many of the VoB providers who expressed a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-trials-admin@localhost [
> Behalf Of HiroHOTTA > Sent: 07 March 2004 10:57 > To: Adrian Georgescu > Cc: Stastny Richard; enum-trials@localhost jseng@localhost > enum-l@localhost jim@localhost enum-trial@localhost > Olivier.Girard@localhost > Subject: Re: New number ranges for E.164 > > > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:09:17 +0100 > Adrian Georgescu ag@localhost wrote: > ... > > Should regulators in each country consider assigning a dedicated number > > range (see Japan example), there will be no need to > > authenticate/validate new requests. ENUM numbers will be assigned on > > the basis of first asked/first served the same way like Internet Domain > > Names. Using established procedures existing already in each country > > for the Domain Names could do the transfers or canceling of numbers. We > > aim for maintaining the E164 space consistent as Richard mentioned and > > other achievable goals that will appear in our sight. > > Adrian, > > Thank you for referring to Japan case. And please accept my > apologies that I couldn't attend the ETSI plugtest meeting. > > Although Japanese Government (regulator) decided 050xxxxyyyy to > IP phones and 050s are already in the market, they haven't > decided the number space for ENUM. This means they haven't > decided whether dedicated or not-dedilated numbers shall be > used. For trials, they strongly suggested the Trial Group, > though not forced us, to use different numbers from those > already assigned including 050xxxxyyyy. > > Regards, > Hiro > >

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>