[enum-wg] repost: Proposal for non-geographic ENUM E.164 UPTS for the general public
Carsten Schiefner enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de
Tue Aug 10 22:21:36 CEST 2004
Hi Chris, Chris Heinze wrote: >>> [currently large regional blocks are >>> reallocated by voip gateway providers to voip-users. so a voip-user >>> from e.g. dresden can have a number from e.g. duesseldorf, hamburg, >>> berlin, munich - or all of them.] >> >> [of some major concern to the regulator] > > yes - actually (except for some endusers that consider it fun to have > numbers from different cities) i know of nobody who is really happy with > this solution, you just have found the first person then. :-) My crowd back in Berlin happily rings me up with my Berlin VoIP number whereever I am. > [...] it's hardly optimal to dial > +4932.... or any other cc-number to reach a user who is currently in > helsinki and might be in hongkong tomorrow... I guess, for Germans callers it would :-) - in particular if any +4932 call from the PSTN is deemed to be local and dumped onto the Internet ASAP. And if I am able to get a grip on other CCs with similar ranges and rules, I am able to satisfy the needs of my counterparts there, too. > as an international prefix could be seen as a public resource that has > to be available in a non-discriminating way, i beleive personal numbers > assigned to the endusers are again the most straightforward solution. Indeed, you are right - at the end of the day, what I outlined above might be only a mid-term solution. Then again, you also want to be reachable from the PSTN - and as Richard Stastny said, deploying a new CC in the global PSTN seems to be really a drag... > hm, right, 100% ack. > but maybe that's just my bad explanation in the proposal, the idea was > to allocate blocks to providers to keep administrative work at the rir > level low, while every single number stays portable by using the > hierarchical means provided by whois: if a single number out of the > provider-allocated block is ported, the maintainer is changed to the new > provider as well as the enum-delegation (see collection of 'most > specific' nameserver info in the proposal). > this way every number would stay portable. So who then would be in charge of the database of ported numbers: the RIR? Many DBs, one maintained by each ITSP that got the block allocated originally? >> [ensure portability/assigning a number directly to the user] > > from my view this would be the most charming solution - but creating a > lot of work on the rir level is not an option, and currently i don't > know of a practical solution to that... hmm... On the "handling the workload" issue it might be helpful to get an opinion from an/the RIR[s] itself/themselves, I guess. > right... hmm... maybe without allocation of blocks to providers, but > allocation of a 'number of (not specific phone-)numbers' could work. > actually that would already be a kind of AW-solution. hm. sounds > realistic to me, while work at the rir-level were still rather low. I am afarid I lost you here - what do you mean with a 'number of (not specific phone-)numbers'? Even the comparision with an AW didn't help... Cheers, -C.
[ enum-wg Archives ]