From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Fri Oct 1 11:29:21 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:29:21 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] +43 ENUM operations contract - english version, press release online Message-ID: <415D2371.1010307@schiefner.de> Better late than never - originally sent to , but neither approved there nor diverted to . Cheers, -C. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: +43 ENUM operations contract - english version, press release online Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:47:18 +0200 From: Michael Haberler To: enum at ietf.org, karen.mulberry at mci.com, robert.johnston at aca.gov.au, Gordon.Lennox at cec.eu.int, ga at lists.centr.org, enum-announce at ripe.net, richard.hill at itu.int, enum-l at denic.de, enum-trial at lists.nic.at on August 24 enum.at GmbH concluded the operations contract for the Austrian ENUM service (3.4.e164.arpa). The english version of the contract is now online at: http://www.rtr.at/web.nsf/lookuid/37ECAC2EFFDD8063C1256F0A0041B3F9/$file/ENUM_Agreement.pdf A press release about this contract can be found at: http://www.enum.at/egc.pdf Michael Haberler Internet Foundation Austria From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Fri Oct 1 12:15:24 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:15:24 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] DENIC's 3rd "ENUM day" held In-Reply-To: <415BDC51.7070107@schiefner.de> References: <415BDC51.7070107@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <415D2E3C.4030507@schiefner.de> Carsten Schiefner wrote: > [...] > > Unfortunately it is availabe in German only so far - I'll post a link to > the English translation as soon as it will become available. here we go: http://www.denic.de/en/denic/presse/press_61.html Regards, -C. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Tue Oct 5 23:52:40 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:52:40 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438F9@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Press Release Kapsch has deployed a SIP Server giving access to the whole company phone system (with a DIAL URI ;-) and placed all extensions into ENUM. If you want to give it a try, do an ENUM Lookup The pilot number is +4350811, which gives you the switschboard (+4350811-0 also gives you the switchboard, as usual in Austria and Germany. DDI extensions are 4 digits, e.g. +4350811-3184 (try it, surprise ;-) The query gives back the SIP URI "sip:ext at kapsch.net, the e-mail address "mailto:firstname.lastname at kapsch.net the webpage of the company "http://www.kapsch.net" and the same number as tel URI (obviously for H323 clients) Congratulations! From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 6 11:30:35 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:30:35 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438F9@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438F9@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <4163BB3B.7050103@schiefner.de> Hi Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: > Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM > > Press Release thanks for the forward, I already got a pointer to an article in German at: http://pressetext.at/pte.mc?pte=041005002 via a Google Alert late yesterday night. However, - as good as the news itself is - I am a bit baffled about the quite "ambituous" notion to be the first worldwide to have set that up. I tend to doubt that a bit... Anyways and apart from that, I fully agree: congratulations! :-) Best, -C. From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Oct 6 12:35:08 2004 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:35:08 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] VoIP and convergence hits the mainstream? Message-ID: <26203.1097058908@gromit.rfc1035.com> Apologies that this is a little off-topic for this list. Last week BBC Radio 4's "In Business" did a programme on VoIP and internet/telephony convergence. It had interviews with BT, Skype and Vonage. While it won't have said anything new to us, I thought the programme was a very good overview of this emerging technology. There was no mention of ENUM though. Anyone interested can listen to the programme from its website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/inbusiness/index.shtml Click on "Connections". From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Oct 6 13:54:10 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:54:10 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438FD@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> >I am a bit baffled about the >quite "ambituous" notion to be the first worldwide to have set that up. >I tend to doubt that a bit... Ok, press departments are always overdoing it a bit ;-) and considering AT43 and even OeFEG ;-) but on the other hand this is really the first company I now of providing public (DIAL) SIP URIs for ALL of their extensions and putting ALL extensions with Sip and mailto in ENUM. Richard -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de] Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2004 11:30 An: Stastny Richard Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Hi Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: > Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM > > Press Release thanks for the forward, I already got a pointer to an article in German at: http://pressetext.at/pte.mc?pte=041005002 via a Google Alert late yesterday night. However, - as good as the news itself is - I am a bit baffled about the quite "ambituous" notion to be the first worldwide to have set that up. I tend to doubt that a bit... Anyways and apart from that, I fully agree: congratulations! :-) Best, -C. From jakob at rfc.se Wed Oct 6 14:15:37 2004 From: jakob at rfc.se (Jakob Schlyter) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:15:37 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438F9@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438F9@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <6E4072CA-1791-11D9-B15B-000A95821192@rfc.se> I'm happy to see people deploying this, especially for companies. on the technical side, do you know why Kapsch uses non-standard NAPTR like E2U+voice:sip instead of the one specified by RFC 3764 (E2U+sip)? jakob From mah at eunet.at Wed Oct 6 14:27:20 2004 From: mah at eunet.at (Michael Haberler) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:27:20 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <6E4072CA-1791-11D9-B15B-000A95821192@rfc.se> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438F9@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <6E4072CA-1791-11D9-B15B-000A95821192@rfc.se> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041006142547.09057de8@localhost> At 14:15 06.10.2004, Jakob Schlyter wrote: >I'm happy to see people deploying this, especially for companies. > >on the technical side, do you know why Kapsch uses non-standard NAPTR like >E2U+voice:sip instead of the one specified by RFC 3764 (E2U+sip)? > > jakob no religious issues here;) the fix as per above is in the code waiting for the next build -Michael From lwc at roke.co.uk Wed Oct 6 15:01:51 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:01:51 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20041006142547.09057de8@localhost> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438F9@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <6E4072CA-1791-11D9-B15B-000A95821192@rfc.se> <6.1.2.0.2.20041006142547.09057de8@localhost> Message-ID: Jakob, folks, Tempting as it is to utter a two word response, there is a well known issue with 3264 - to "allow backwards compatibility" (i.e. not make a certain large Router manufacturer's kit obsolescent overnight), you can use sip+E2U as well, so ETSI versus IETF is the least of your problems. We now return you to the adverts. Lawrence On 6 Oct 2004, at 13:27, Michael Haberler wrote: > At 14:15 06.10.2004, Jakob Schlyter wrote: > >> I'm happy to see people deploying this, especially for companies. >> >> on the technical side, do you know why Kapsch uses non-standard NAPTR >> like E2U+voice:sip instead of the one specified by RFC 3764 >> (E2U+sip)? >> >> jakob > > no religious issues here;) the fix as per above is in the code waiting > for the next build > > -Michael From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Oct 6 15:13:44 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:13:44 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438FE@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> BTW, ALL enumservices used by Kapsch are non-IETF standard but they are ETSI TS 102 172 standard ;-) Richard -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2004 15:01 An: Michael Haberler Cc: Stastny Richard; Angerer Christian; Jakob Schlyter; enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Jakob, folks, Tempting as it is to utter a two word response, there is a well known issue with 3264 - to "allow backwards compatibility" (i.e. not make a certain large Router manufacturer's kit obsolescent overnight), you can use sip+E2U as well, so ETSI versus IETF is the least of your problems. We now return you to the adverts. Lawrence On 6 Oct 2004, at 13:27, Michael Haberler wrote: > At 14:15 06.10.2004, Jakob Schlyter wrote: > >> I'm happy to see people deploying this, especially for companies. >> >> on the technical side, do you know why Kapsch uses non-standard NAPTR >> like E2U+voice:sip instead of the one specified by RFC 3764 >> (E2U+sip)? >> >> jakob > > no religious issues here;) the fix as per above is in the code waiting > for the next build > > -Michael -- Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship. From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Oct 6 15:24:26 2004 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:24:26 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: Message from "Stastny Richard" of "Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:13:44 +0200." <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438FE@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <26395.1097069066@gromit.rfc1035.com> >>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard writes: Richard> BTW, ALL enumservices used by Kapsch are non-IETF Richard> standard but they are ETSI TS 102 172 standard ;-) The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. :-) From richard at shockey.us Wed Oct 6 16:23:42 2004 From: richard at shockey.us (Richard Shockey) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:23:42 -0400 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438FE@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc > References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438FE@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20041006102310.03fb26b0@joy.songbird.com> At 09:13 AM 10/6/2004, Stastny Richard wrote: >BTW, ALL enumservices used by Kapsch are non-IETF standard >but they are ETSI TS 102 172 standard ;-) gurrrrrrrrr :-) > >Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From x at ccn.net Wed Oct 6 17:41:42 2004 From: x at ccn.net (Chris Heinze) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:41:42 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] regulator prohibiting current practice of use of +49 numbers for voip, update Message-ID: <41641236.8050008@ccn.net> hi! we had that some time ago. now it's getting more concrete: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/51877 (german only again, sorry) short summary: regtp (the german regulator) now prohibits (voip) providers in general to give phonenumbers to users that do not live in the area of the respective prefix or have their company located there. this is effective from october 15th. btw: the non-regional prefix under +49 is still not in sight. so - of course :) - i have to mention the 'proposal for non-regional upts available to the general public' again. everyone interested in possible solutions to many voip-specific problems with e.164 numbers should really read this (can be found in the archive of this mailinglist). kind regards, Chris Heinze From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 6 18:06:11 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:06:11 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438FD@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1624438FD@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <416417F3.8050105@schiefner.de> Hi Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: > but on the other hand this is really the first company I now of > providing public (DIAL) SIP URIs for ALL of their extensions and > putting ALL extensions with Sip and mailto in ENUM. definitions, definitions... :-) But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same page here as I never came across this term before... Cheers - and thanks a bunch, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 6 18:10:12 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:10:12 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <26395.1097069066@gromit.rfc1035.com> References: <26395.1097069066@gromit.rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <416418E4.4020205@schiefner.de> Jim Reid wrote: >>>>>>"Richard" == Stastny Richard writes: > Richard> BTW, ALL enumservices used by Kapsch are non-IETF > Richard> standard but they are ETSI TS 102 172 standard ;-) > > The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. :-) And isn't even the entire economy as we know it built on the coice mantra anyways?! ;-> Cheers, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 6 18:55:05 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:55:05 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] regulator prohibiting current practice of use of +49 numbers for voip, update In-Reply-To: <41641236.8050008@ccn.net> References: <41641236.8050008@ccn.net> Message-ID: <41642369.90609@schiefner.de> Hi Chris, Chris Heinze wrote: > we had that some time ago. now it's getting more concrete: > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/51877 > (german only again, sorry) thanks for this - I expect to have RegTP's press release available in English any time soon. > short summary: > regtp (the german regulator) now prohibits (voip) providers in general > to give phonenumbers to users that do not live in the area of the > respective prefix or have their company located there. this is effective > from october 15th. > > btw: the non-regional prefix under +49 is still not in sight. Well, the presse release also says that any numbers issued until the 15th will be safe as in: they can be used until August 05 and will not be revoked. In August 05, however, the introduction of 032 as the range for (also) VoIP purposes has - with some greater certainty - already been seen then. Last, but not least: this targets all sorts of providers dealing with E.164 numbers, not only SIP gateway providers for example. Cheers, -C. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Thu Oct 7 01:02:35 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:02:35 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> >But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same >page here as I never came across this term before... I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden (.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the Internet. So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do not have VoIP. And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not have a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. regards Richard -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de] Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2004 18:06 An: Stastny Richard Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM Hi Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: > but on the other hand this is really the first company I now of > providing public (DIAL) SIP URIs for ALL of their extensions and > putting ALL extensions with Sip and mailto in ENUM. definitions, definitions... :-) But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same page here as I never came across this term before... Cheers - and thanks a bunch, -C. From ag at ag-projects.com Thu Oct 7 01:48:32 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:48:32 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <3B0F0D2F-17F2-11D9-9894-000D93C0D140@ag-projects.com> Indeed, what the majority of VoIP providers do not seem to realize today is that the cost of building the walled garden is exceeding the usefulness of the service provided. I hope the version 1 of today's VoIP service providers will be replaced by a more advanced version 2 who will generate more revenues and attract more customers by doing exactly the opposite. My ENUM and SIP addresses must be public and reachable from the Internet, should I stay in a walled carden I will behave like my neighbour's unfortunate cat, I will look for better food and entertainment at the neighbours. Regards, Adrian On Oct 7, 2004, at 1:02 AM, Stastny Richard wrote: >> But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the >> same >> page here as I never came across this term before... > > I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering > the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden > (.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you > with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the > Internet. > > So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do > not have VoIP. > > And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not have > a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. > > regards > > Richard > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de] > Gesendet: Mi 06.10.2004 18:06 > An: Stastny Richard > Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached > with ENUM > > > > Hi Richard, > > Stastny Richard wrote: > > but on the other hand this is really the first company I now of > > providing public (DIAL) SIP URIs for ALL of their extensions and > > putting ALL extensions with Sip and mailto in ENUM. > > definitions, definitions... :-) > > But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the > same > page here as I never came across this term before... > > Cheers - and thanks a bunch, > > -C. > > > > > From lwc at roke.co.uk Thu Oct 7 02:52:31 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:52:31 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <3B0F0D2F-17F2-11D9-9894-000D93C0D140@ag-projects.com> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <3B0F0D2F-17F2-11D9-9894-000D93C0D140@ag-projects.com> Message-ID: <2B3E7203-17FB-11D9-9ED8-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> 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". For ENUM, I had assumed that the Registrant will be the customer of the Communications Service provided via the associated E.164 number. Note - the customer, not their CSP. AFAICT, that's the plan in the UK, at least. As for "experimental" systems in which the CSP is allowed to register ENUM domains and, as a convenience to their customers, publishes the SIP URIs by which those customers can be contacted (like those fine chaps at Sipgate), good for them - they should be applauded, for a good example of SIP DIAL. It's also fairly tricky in ENUM if the customers have the rights and so can choose not to opt-in/register. If they do register, then the CSP may be able to provision the NAPTR with the SIP URI, but if they don't you're screwed. Thus, in the long term, I'm not sure how SIP DIAL fits with ("public") ENUM. For those who use DNS in private "Walled Garden" systems - they might as well be using trained rats to pass around routing data - how would we ever know? However, these are *NOT* ENUM - they might be an ENUM-like system, but they are not according to RFC3261 (or TS102172 :), so they're fakes. all the best, Lawrence On 7 Oct 2004, at 00:48, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > Indeed, what the majority of VoIP providers do not seem to realize > today is that the cost of building the walled garden is exceeding the > usefulness of the service provided. I hope the version 1 of today's > VoIP service providers will be replaced by a more advanced version 2 > who will generate more revenues and attract more customers by doing > exactly the opposite. > > My ENUM and SIP addresses must be public and reachable from the > Internet, should I stay in a walled carden I will behave like my > neighbour's unfortunate cat, I will look for better food and > entertainment at the neighbours. > > Regards, > Adrian > > On Oct 7, 2004, at 1:02 AM, Stastny Richard wrote: > Carsten asked: >>> But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the >>> same >>> page here as I never came across this term before... >> >> I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering >> the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden >> (.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you >> with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the >> Internet. >> >> So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do >> not have VoIP. >> >> And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not have >> a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. >> >> regards >> >> Richard From richard at shockey.us Thu Oct 7 03:32:01 2004 From: richard at shockey.us (Richard Shockey) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:32:01 -0400 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc > References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20041006211728.045ca560@joy.songbird.com> At 07:02 PM 10/6/2004, Stastny Richard wrote: > >But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same > >page here as I never came across this term before... I think I need to get T-Shirts made up here... DIAL URI ! NO URI ! NO SIP! >I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering >the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden >(.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you >with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the Internet. Henry and I have been preaching this at fine VoIP conferences world wide. The issuance of a SIP URI by a SIP service provider is a fundamental definition of a real SIP VoIP service. Now think of someone selling you a email service but does not offer you a email address. What I find totally amazing is that the VoIP service providers in the US and Europe do not understand the "sticky" nature of naming and addressing. How many millions of AOL users stay with the service just because they wont change email addresses. DT....FT, BT certainly must see the same behaivor fon their consumer ISP products etc. I heard that SIP service providers in Europe wouldn't consider confederating using private ENUM because they thought other providers would poach on each others customers. This is total madness. But what else is new. ATT seems to be clueless about this as well..we heard at the SIP summit in Chicago that Vonage was "considering" giving out URI's to its customers ..but no announcement as of yet. This is the opportunity for the biggest land grab by VoIP service providers ever by locking customers into SIP URI's but they seem to want to shoot themselves in the foot by not offering real internet SIP addressing. Mind boggling, madness, just plain stupid ..almost as crazy as well ... invading some middle east country without allies ... >So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do >not have VoIP. > >And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not have >a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. precisely ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Oct 7 12:56:47 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:56:47 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] regulator prohibiting current practice of use of +49 numbers for voip, update In-Reply-To: <41642369.90609@schiefner.de> References: <41641236.8050008@ccn.net> <41642369.90609@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <416520EF.8000600@schiefner.de> Carsten Schiefner wrote: > thanks for this - I expect to have RegTP's press release available in > English any time soon. Here we go: http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03095/ The link "Nummernverwaltung" links to a German page, though. I do not expect this one being translated, too - so if there is an overwhelming interest, I might take the effort... ;-) Regards, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Oct 7 12:59:44 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:59:44 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <416521A0.7000202@schiefner.de> Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: >>But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the same >>page here as I never came across this term before... > > I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering > the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden > (.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you > with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the Internet. I see - thanks for the clarification of that term. > So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do > not have VoIP. So do I. > And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not have > a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. ...at least not for VoIP purposes. :-) Regards, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Oct 7 13:15:45 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:15:45 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <2B3E7203-17FB-11D9-9ED8-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443904@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <3B0F0D2F-17F2-11D9-9894-000D93C0D140@ag-projects.com> <2B3E7203-17FB-11D9-9ED8-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> Message-ID: <41652561.6060007@schiefner.de> Lawrence, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > As for "experimental" systems in which the CSP is allowed to register ENUM > domains and, as a convenience to their customers, publishes the SIP URIs > by which those customers can be contacted (like those fine chaps at > Sipgate), > good for them - they should be applauded, for a good example of SIP DIAL. just a minor addition: SIPgate customers do NOT become holders of the numbers they get assigned by becoming customers - holdership remains of the block remains with SIPgate, which effectively cancels number portability here. This is one of the concerns RegTP, the German regulator, voiced the other day - see separate thread here on that very list. Also, they appear to not have ALL their blocks in ENUM yet. Yours truly is still waiting to have +49.30.868706484 enabled, when other blocks are delegated already. Apart from that: I am a happy customer of their's. :-) Regards, -C. From Henry.Sinnreich at mci.com Thu Oct 7 13:19:27 2004 From: Henry.Sinnreich at mci.com (Henry Sinnreich) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:19:27 -0500 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM In-Reply-To: <2B3E7203-17FB-11D9-9ED8-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> Message-ID: <0I570097KOSFLP@dgismtp01.mcilink.com> Yes, exactly. I have tried to give a humorous explanation to this and so-called "VoIP" versions in a roundtable. Henry -----Original Message----- From: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:53 PM To: Adrian Georgescu Cc: Stastny Richard; Carsten Schiefner; Henry Sinnreich; Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM 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". For ENUM, I had assumed that the Registrant will be the customer of the Communications Service provided via the associated E.164 number. Note - the customer, not their CSP. AFAICT, that's the plan in the UK, at least. As for "experimental" systems in which the CSP is allowed to register ENUM domains and, as a convenience to their customers, publishes the SIP URIs by which those customers can be contacted (like those fine chaps at Sipgate), good for them - they should be applauded, for a good example of SIP DIAL. It's also fairly tricky in ENUM if the customers have the rights and so can choose not to opt-in/register. If they do register, then the CSP may be able to provision the NAPTR with the SIP URI, but if they don't you're screwed. Thus, in the long term, I'm not sure how SIP DIAL fits with ("public") ENUM. For those who use DNS in private "Walled Garden" systems - they might as well be using trained rats to pass around routing data - how would we ever know? However, these are *NOT* ENUM - they might be an ENUM-like system, but they are not according to RFC3261 (or TS102172 :), so they're fakes. all the best, Lawrence On 7 Oct 2004, at 00:48, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > Indeed, what the majority of VoIP providers do not seem to realize > today is that the cost of building the walled garden is exceeding the > usefulness of the service provided. I hope the version 1 of today's > VoIP service providers will be replaced by a more advanced version 2 > who will generate more revenues and attract more customers by doing > exactly the opposite. > > My ENUM and SIP addresses must be public and reachable from the > Internet, should I stay in a walled carden I will behave like my > neighbour's unfortunate cat, I will look for better food and > entertainment at the neighbours. > > Regards, > Adrian > > On Oct 7, 2004, at 1:02 AM, Stastny Richard wrote: > Carsten asked: >>> But WTH is a "public (DIAL) SIP URI"? Just to continue to be on the >>> same page here as I never came across this term before... >> >> I think the term has been brought up by Henry Sinnreich. considering >> the currently many providers provide VoIP services in a walled garden >> (.e.g. 3GPP, TISPAN NGN, even Skype), but they do not provide you >> with a public SIP URI, so you cannot be reached (dialed) on the >> Internet. >> >> So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do not >> have VoIP. >> >> And especially on an ENUM related list you may add: if you do not >> have a SIP URI, you cannot use ENUM as well. >> >> regards >> >> Richard -- Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Roundtable-IR1.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 1385472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Fri Oct 8 10:19:35 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:19:35 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) In-Reply-To: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B5@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> References: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B5@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Message-ID: <41664D97.6010307@schiefner.de> Christoph, Christoph K?nkel wrote: > strange. > I had a quick look at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt and it reads: > > Network Working Group J. Rosenberg > Request for Comments: 3261 dynamicsoft > Obsoletes: 2543 H. Schulzrinne > Category: Standards Track ... > June 2002 > SIP: Session Initiation Protocol > > no mention of ENUM. ENUM is 3761 - so just one digit mixed up; and they even look almost the same. :-) Happens to me all the time, too... > 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. So what kind of URI you are using then - "h323:"? Or "tel:", so that it is about Internet->PSTN termination? > Same goes true for a number of our customers I know of, which are using > ENUM in their telephony production environment. > > Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely > coupled issues? What _exactly!_ is only loosely coupled here from you PoV? Best, Carsten From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Oct 8 11:40:31 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:40:31 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244390D@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> >>ENUM is 3761 - so just one digit mixed up; and they even look almost the > same. :-) >Happens to me all the time, too... ;-) >> 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. >So what kind of URI you are using then - "h323:"? Or "tel:", so that it >is about Internet->PSTN termination? If you look up this domain, you do not find any NAPTR, (only TXT records) so how can I call you? Richard From lwc at roke.co.uk Fri Oct 8 11:54:18 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:54:18 +0100 Subject: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) In-Reply-To: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B5@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> References: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B5@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Message-ID: <059BE047-1910-11D9-B688-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> Hi Folks, inline best regards, Lawrence On 8 Oct 2004, at 08:40, Christoph K?nkel wrote: > strange. > 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 at innovaphone.com" 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. > From x at ccn.net Fri Oct 8 12:46:58 2004 From: x at ccn.net (Chris Heinze) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:46:58 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244390D@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244390D@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <41667022.7050302@ccn.net> hi! first of all - the mail richard and carsten are refering to wasn't sent to the ml? i didn't receive it and didn't find it in the archives... > If you look up this domain, you do not find any NAPTR, (only TXT records) so how > can I call you? well i found naptr records in that domain and they're pointing towards an h.323 gw. e.g.: 1.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa order = 100, preference = 100 flags = "u" services = "E2U+h323:voice" rule = "!^\+49703173009(.*)$!h323:\1 at gw-amt.innovaphone.com!" replacement = (root) just a thought on some other issues in this thread: voip expanded is voice over ip. so e.g. opening an rtp stream is voip, just like 'cat /dev/audio | ssh remote.host -c "cat - > /dev/audio"' would be voip. to refer to sip i recommend using the word 'sip', or for sip in conjunction with enum i recommend using 'sip with enum' or something like that. and while we're at it: this naptr-stuff is a technical concept. maybe the following is true for me only because i'm one of the technical people, but i need names for technical concepts, and i need them to be kept strictly separate from political stuff. so when i say 'enum' i will most probably be refering to the technical concept, what i mean will be the dns-naptr concept for tElephone NUmber Mapping. also, when i hear 'enum' i don't take for granted that this means e164.arpa is used, because in practice that would simply be foolish. whether e164.arpa or this.domain.is.better is used also is not relevant for this, just like it's a different question whether a naptr points to sip or h.323 or maybe tincans. other people might see this differently ofc, but just as i don't ignore them as i know that the rfc is suboptimal in this point, i think to be taken serious enum used with other domains than e164.arpa can't be ignored either. and insisting in people saying 'enum-like' or 'enum with a different domain than e164.arpa' simply doesn't work, i guess even changing the rfc would be more feasible... and BTW: yes, i think not using e164.arpa for enum is generally a not too bright idea... and yes, i do support sip (with assistance of enum) as voip protocol. kind regards, Chris Heinze From lwc at roke.co.uk Fri Oct 8 12:58:35 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:58:35 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) In-Reply-To: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B7@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> References: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B7@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Message-ID: <00A3E417-1919-11D9-B688-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> Hi Christoph, You say 3762, I say 3764. I'll leave the religious wars to someone else. However - Congratulations! You have managed to find an Enumservice syntax for your NAPTRs that I haven't seen before: E2U+h323:voice Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break Asterisk's enum.c processing. all the best, Lawrence On 8 Oct 2004, at 11:10, Christoph K?nkel wrote: > Lawrence, > > add just any extension to the trunk base number, e.g. > 0.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. See the NAPTR. > > However, I think you missed my point(s). I was not going to debate > wether I have a NAPTR or not. I was just trying to make the point > that the original thread implied a tight coupling between ENUM and > SIP, where there is none. And that Kapsch certainly is not the first > company to be reached with ENUM. > > :-) Christoph > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] >> Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely >> coupled issues? >> > > Yes, you do miss something. > From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Fri Oct 8 13:00:19 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:00:19 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) In-Reply-To: <41667022.7050302@ccn.net> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244390D@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <41667022.7050302@ccn.net> Message-ID: <41667343.2030301@schiefner.de> Hi Chris, Chris Heinze wrote: > hi! > > first of all - the mail richard and carsten are refering to wasn't sent > to the ml? i didn't receive it and didn't find it in the archives... they are probably still held for moderation as the sender may not be subscribed - I flagged NCC folks already and hope to see these postings here any time soon. > [...] > and BTW: yes, i think not using e164.arpa for enum is generally a not > too bright idea... and yes, i do support sip (with assistance of enum) > as voip protocol. Thanks for this clarification! ;-) Regards, -C. From ckl at innovaphone.com Fri Oct 8 09:40:52 2004 From: ckl at innovaphone.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christoph_K=FCnkel?=) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:40:52 +0200 Subject: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Message-ID: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B5@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> strange. I had a quick look at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt and it reads: Network Working Group J. Rosenberg Request for Comments: 3261 dynamicsoft Obsoletes: 2543 H. Schulzrinne Category: Standards Track ... June 2002 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol no mention of ENUM. 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. Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely coupled issues? Regards, Christoph -----Original Message----- From: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:53 PM To: Adrian Georgescu Cc: Stastny Richard; Carsten Schiefner; Henry Sinnreich; Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM 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. From ckl at innovaphone.com Fri Oct 8 10:34:24 2004 From: ckl at innovaphone.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christoph_K=FCnkel?=) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:34:24 +0200 Subject: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Message-ID: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B6@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Hi Carsten, kind of "Freud'sche Fehlleistung", isnt it ;-) [ does someone volunteer to translate that therm to english? ] Yes, I am using a h323: URI. We do that for more than 6 months now and some of our customers too, using comercially available equipment. My point is that ENUM and SIP are only loosely related. And VoIP is not SIP, as well as H323 is not VoIP. ENUM is neither about H323 nor SIP nor PSTN. It is about associating e164 numbers to various kinds of services (internet related or not, doesnt matter). :-) Christoph -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de] > no mention of ENUM. ENUM is 3761 - so just one digit mixed up; and they even look almost the same. :-) Happens to me all the time, too... > 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. So what kind of URI you are using then - "h323:"? Or "tel:", so that it is about Internet->PSTN termination? > Same goes true for a number of our customers I know of, which are using > ENUM in their telephony production environment. > > Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely > coupled issues? What _exactly!_ is only loosely coupled here from you PoV? Best, Carsten From ckl at innovaphone.com Fri Oct 8 12:10:08 2004 From: ckl at innovaphone.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christoph_K=FCnkel?=) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:10:08 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Message-ID: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239B7@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Lawrence, add just any extension to the trunk base number, e.g. 0.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. See the NAPTR. However, I think you missed my point(s). I was not going to debate wether I have a NAPTR or not. I was just trying to make the point that the original thread implied a tight coupling between ENUM and SIP, where there is none. And that Kapsch certainly is not the first company to be reached with ENUM. :-) Christoph -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] > Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely > coupled issues? > Yes, you do miss something. From eder at berkom.de Fri Oct 8 13:40:19 2004 From: eder at berkom.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Eder?=) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 13:40:19 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) In-Reply-To: <059BE047-1910-11D9-B688-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501c4ad2b$9a128340$5e0c278d@edernb> 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 11:54 An: Christoph K?nkel Cc: Henry Sinnreich; Adrian Georgescu; Carsten Schiefner; enum-wg at ripe.net; 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 K?nkel wrote: > strange. > 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 at innovaphone.com" 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. > From ckl at innovaphone.com Fri Oct 8 14:25:49 2004 From: ckl at innovaphone.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christoph_K=FCnkel?=) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:25:49 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Message-ID: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A98C371@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Lawrence, You still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-) Nevertheless, regarding the service spec. This is done by our trial enum NAPTR hoster. See http://www.enum-trial.de/newsletter/newsletter02.htm (at the end) for details [ sorry, I am not aware of an English translation ]. Do you think either RFC 3761 or 3762 forbids this? or is enum.c the normative reference? :-) Christoph -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] [ ... ] I haven't seen before: E2U+h323:voice Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break Asterisk's enum.c processing. From lwc at roke.co.uk Fri Oct 8 15:00:01 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:00:01 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) In-Reply-To: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A98C371@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> References: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A98C371@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Message-ID: Hi Christoph, folks, Re. two points - I have a certain nostalgia for the old days when folk thought that H.323 was the answer to a maiden's prayer and people still voted Tory in the UK. I still have an old Pentium 166 in our lab that must be about the same era, so I DO understand the concept of using whatever old kit is hanging around. Re. 3761/3762 forbidding anything - yup. Strictly, it's RFC3762 that forbids this, as that slim document is what registers the h323 Enumservice. 3762 does not mention any sub-sub-type, so the :voice bit is invalid. Talk to Orit if you think it should be changed. AFAIK, Asterisk is one of the two widest used ENUM-enabled systems, the other being SER. Hence whilst the * enum.c does meet RFCs 3761, 3762, 3764 (and also supports the ETSI 102172 spec), as well as the earlier RFC2915 and RFC2916, (i.e. it's pretty flexible), it breaks with the syntax chosen by your ?hoster?. So it goes. all the best, Lawrence On 8 Oct 2004, at 13:25, Christoph K?nkel wrote: > Lawrence, > > You still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-) > > Nevertheless, regarding the service spec. This is done by our trial > enum NAPTR hoster. See > http://www.enum-trial.de/newsletter/newsletter02.htm (at the end) for > details [ sorry, I am not aware of an English translation ]. > > Do you think either RFC 3761 or 3762 forbids this? > or is enum.c the normative reference? > > :-) Christoph > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] > [ ... ] > > I haven't seen before: E2U+h323:voice > > > Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break > > Asterisk's > > enum.c processing. > From ckl at innovaphone.com Fri Oct 8 15:18:22 2004 From: ckl at innovaphone.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christoph_K=FCnkel?=) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:18:22 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Message-ID: <0E6CC1D4D38A5742930CE896A653477A5239BB@inno-exchange.innovaphone.sifi> Lawrence, you still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-) I was not going to debate if Torys do speak H323 or not. I am not going to debate if any VoIP protocol is "better" or "less nostalgic" than another (we may well debate if one protocol is more suited for a partical purpose than another). I happen to work for a company that make PBX products which support both H.323 and SIP. But I am polite enough not to assume that the bunch of customers we have using H.323 are somewhat odd or as out-dated as your p166. Anyway, I was trying to say that neither VoIP nor ENUM require a SIP-URI. And that Kapsch wasn't the first company reachable via enum. Think we have consumed enough bandwidth for that though... :-) Christoph -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 15:00 An: Christoph K?nkel Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable) Hi Christoph, folks, Re. two points - I have a certain nostalgia for the old days when folk thought that H.323 was the answer to a maiden's prayer and people still voted Tory in the UK. I still have an old Pentium 166 in our lab that must be about the same era, so I DO understand the concept of using whatever old kit is hanging around. Re. 3761/3762 forbidding anything - yup. Strictly, it's RFC3762 that forbids this, as that slim document is what registers the h323 Enumservice. 3762 does not mention any sub-sub-type, so the :voice bit is invalid. Talk to Orit if you think it should be changed. AFAIK, Asterisk is one of the two widest used ENUM-enabled systems, the other being SER. Hence whilst the * enum.c does meet RFCs 3761, 3762, 3764 (and also supports the ETSI 102172 spec), as well as the earlier RFC2915 and RFC2916, (i.e. it's pretty flexible), it breaks with the syntax chosen by your ?hoster?. So it goes. all the best, Lawrence On 8 Oct 2004, at 13:25, Christoph K?nkel wrote: > Lawrence, > > You still manage to ignore my 2 points ;-) > > Nevertheless, regarding the service spec. This is done by our trial > enum NAPTR hoster. See > http://www.enum-trial.de/newsletter/newsletter02.htm (at the end) for > details [ sorry, I am not aware of an English translation ]. > > Do you think either RFC 3761 or 3762 forbids this? > or is enum.c the normative reference? > > :-) Christoph > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] > [ ... ] > > I haven't seen before: E2U+h323:voice > > > Looking at the code, I suspect that this will successfully break > > Asterisk's > > enum.c processing. > -- Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship. From hotta at jprs.co.jp Wed Oct 13 12:58:51 2004 From: hotta at jprs.co.jp (HiroHOTTA) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:58:51 +0900 Subject: [enum-wg] Re: Survey on ENUM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041013195734.D70E.HOTTA@jprs.co.jp> Hello, Here are the answers for Japan. Hiro ================= > What is the country and E.164 code? Japan, +81 > Who is the delegate for the E.164 code? None (currently) > The status of deployment (notdelegated>applied>delegated/objected>trial>hiatus>production) notdelegated trial is done under 1.8.e164.jp > ENUM Project contact details (telephone, email, web) organizations : JPNIC and JPRS E-mail : sec at etjp.jp > Is a trial being, or going to be, conducted? A trial is on the way It's without officially delegation but is recognized and participated in by the government > What type of numbers are being used in the trial? Special numbers led by '000' which do not look like the existing phone numbers. > Is there work or plans toward full permanent deployment? That should be the result of the trial. > What type of numbers are to be used in full deployment? That should be the result of the trial. > Who is leading the ENUM project? (government, industry working group, etc.) Trial team which mainly consists of organizations from the industry. > Who operates the ccTLD for that country at present? JPRS > What type of organisation runs the ccTLD? (state, private, academic, etc.) private > What is the ccTLD legal regulation, if any? None > Who is the current Tier 1 registry? JPRS (ccTLD for .JP) behaves as Tier 1 registry under 1.8.e164.jp > Who is, or will be, the permanent Tier 1 registry? Not yet decided. > How will the Tier 1 registry selection be made? (i.e. decision, license, concession, agreement, public procurement, etc.) Not yet decided. > How will the method of cost recovery for the Tier 1 registry's operations? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Will there be more than one Tier 1 provider for the country? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Will there be ENUM registrars? Most probably. > What will be the ENUM validation technique? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Is there/will there be a special number block for ENUM and/or IP Telephony? Not yet decided... under investigation by the trial team and the government. > Is there special treatment for unlisted numbers? No. > Are there any plans for infrastructure ENUM? That should be the result of the trial. > What is your ENUM WHOIS address? We don't have currently ENUM WHOIS > Please provide the history of ENUM trials, projects etc., if any. Please see http://etjp.jp/english/index.html > What are your future plans? (and dates if available) Trial has had one year experience and it's extended by one year until Sept. 2005. Interconnection trials between communication providers including oversee communication are expected. === From lwc at roke.co.uk Wed Oct 13 15:24:46 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:24:46 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in the UK Message-ID: <400DF7AB-1D1B-11D9-9C86-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> Hi Folks, It occurs to me that not everyone will know that the Final Report on the UK ENUM Trial phase is "out" and available for your browsing/downloading pleasure. Thus for anyone who didn't know this already... see all the best, Lawrence From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Oct 13 18:32:44 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:32:44 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Re: Survey on ENUM Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443939@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> I am wondering what is happening with all this nice data coming in, they seem to vanish into a black hole. At least there is no updates yet on http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html regards Richard -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: HiroHOTTA [mailto:hotta at jprs.co.jp] Gesendet: Mi 13.10.2004 12:58 An: enum-wg at ripe.net Cc: Betreff: [enum-wg] Re: Survey on ENUM Hello, Here are the answers for Japan. Hiro ================= > What is the country and E.164 code? Japan, +81 > Who is the delegate for the E.164 code? None (currently) > The status of deployment (notdelegated>applied>delegated/objected>trial>hiatus>production) notdelegated trial is done under 1.8.e164.jp > ENUM Project contact details (telephone, email, web) organizations : JPNIC and JPRS E-mail : sec at etjp.jp > Is a trial being, or going to be, conducted? A trial is on the way It's without officially delegation but is recognized and participated in by the government > What type of numbers are being used in the trial? Special numbers led by '000' which do not look like the existing phone numbers. > Is there work or plans toward full permanent deployment? That should be the result of the trial. > What type of numbers are to be used in full deployment? That should be the result of the trial. > Who is leading the ENUM project? (government, industry working group, etc.) Trial team which mainly consists of organizations from the industry. > Who operates the ccTLD for that country at present? JPRS > What type of organisation runs the ccTLD? (state, private, academic, etc.) private > What is the ccTLD legal regulation, if any? None > Who is the current Tier 1 registry? JPRS (ccTLD for .JP) behaves as Tier 1 registry under 1.8.e164.jp > Who is, or will be, the permanent Tier 1 registry? Not yet decided. > How will the Tier 1 registry selection be made? (i.e. decision, license, concession, agreement, public procurement, etc.) Not yet decided. > How will the method of cost recovery for the Tier 1 registry's operations? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Will there be more than one Tier 1 provider for the country? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Will there be ENUM registrars? Most probably. > What will be the ENUM validation technique? A recommendation can be result of the trial. > Is there/will there be a special number block for ENUM and/or IP Telephony? Not yet decided... under investigation by the trial team and the government. > Is there special treatment for unlisted numbers? No. > Are there any plans for infrastructure ENUM? That should be the result of the trial. > What is your ENUM WHOIS address? We don't have currently ENUM WHOIS > Please provide the history of ENUM trials, projects etc., if any. Please see http://etjp.jp/english/index.html > What are your future plans? (and dates if available) Trial has had one year experience and it's extended by one year until Sept. 2005. Interconnection trials between communication providers including oversee communication are expected. === From kim at centr.org Thu Oct 14 10:32:52 2004 From: kim at centr.org (Kim Davies) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:32:52 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Re: Survey on ENUM In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443939@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443939@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <416E39B4.3080607@centr.org> Stastny Richard wrote: > I am wondering what is happening with all this nice data coming in, > they seem to vanish into a black hole. > > At least there is no updates yet on > http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html I shall update the webpage later today with all the updates received to date. Regrettably I have fallen into a black hole these past few weeks! best regards, kim -- Kim Davies, Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries Avenue Louise 327, B-1050 Brussels; Tel. +32 2 627 5550 From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Oct 15 14:31:06 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:31:06 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1622B0743@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Dear all, I just submitted two ETSI drafts regarding ENUM as rapporteur for the next ETSI TISPAN#4bis meeting in Sophia Antipolis November 2-5, 2004. ETSI TS 102 172 Version 2.0.6 "Minimum requirements for interoperability of ENUM implementations" http://enum.nic.at/documents/ETSI/Drafts/04bTD022%20Draft%20ts_102172v02 0003.doc and ETSI TR 102 055v006 "Infrastructure ENUM" http://enum.nic.at/documents/ETSI/Drafts/04bTD023%20Draft%20tr_102055v00 6.doc please use the above links to retrieve the documents regards Richard Stastny From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Oct 15 14:37:41 2004 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:37:41 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted In-Reply-To: Message from "Stastny Richard" of "Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:31:06 +0200." <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1622B0743@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <14359.1097843861@gromit.rfc1035.com> Richard, can these documents be made available in an open format like PDF? From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Fri Oct 15 14:44:43 2004 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:44:43 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted In-Reply-To: <14359.1097843861@gromit.rfc1035.com> References: <14359.1097843861@gromit.rfc1035.com> Message-ID: On 15 Oct 2004, at 13:37, Jim Reid wrote: > Richard, can these documents be made available in an open format like > PDF? I'ld find thst really helpful, too. Thanks in anticipation! Best regards, Niall O'Reilly UCD Computing Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Oct 15 15:22:41 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:22:41 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443942@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Done http://enum.nic.at/documents/ETSI/Drafts/04bTD022%20Draft%20ts_102172v02 0003.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/6cpf8 http://enum.nic.at/documents/ETSI/Drafts/04bTD023%20Draft%20tr_102055v00 6.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/6k26x Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 2:38 PM > To: Stastny Richard > Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted > > > Richard, can these documents be made available in an open > format like PDF? > From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Oct 15 15:23:55 2004 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:23:55 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted In-Reply-To: Message from "Stastny Richard" of "Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:22:41 +0200." <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443942@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <14489.1097846635@gromit.rfc1035.com> Thanks very much Richard. Please try to remember to produce PDF versions for any future documents. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Fri Oct 15 15:38:44 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:38:44 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F1622B0748@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Ok, I will make a knot in my handkerchief ;-) On the other side, if I do not remeber, I am pretty sure you will remind me ;-) Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:24 PM > To: Stastny Richard > Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] New ETSI Drafts on ENUM submitted > > > Thanks very much Richard. > > Please try to remember to produce PDF versions for any future > documents. > From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Tue Oct 19 12:43:15 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:43:15 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM support in openH323 Message-ID: <4174EFC3.3080206@schiefner.de> FYI - a pointer to this posting here: http://www.openh323.org/pipermail/openh323/2004-August/069519.html came along on Saturday via . Best, Carsten From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Tue Oct 19 22:51:09 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:51:09 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany Message-ID: <41757E3D.8070603@schiefner.de> Folks, RegTP, the German Regulator, yesterday held a foum on "Voice over IP - Revolution or Evolution on the Telecommunications Market?" annonced on 30 July: http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03017/ One of the major outcomes is that allocation rules for 032 national numbers will be out as early as 24 November (this year! ;-) and that ranges may be applied for immediately afterwards. The press release is at: http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03100/ The speech given by Matthias Kurth, RegTP's president, is at: http://www.regtp.de/imperia/md/content/en/aktuelles/Rede_Kurth_TK-Forum_2004_en.pdf Best, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Tue Oct 19 23:04:23 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:04:23 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile in Ireland... Message-ID: <41758157.6050808@schiefner.de> Folks, are we witnessing a trend?! ;-) ComReg sets out framework for Voice Over Internet Services in Ireland http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101858 [...] The main decisions in this paper are as follows: 1. ComReg intends to open a new number range (access code 076) for the purposes of facilitating the introduction of VoIP services. [...] Best, Carsten From ag at ag-projects.com Tue Oct 19 23:35:48 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:35:48 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile in Ireland... In-Reply-To: <41758157.6050808@schiefner.de> References: <41758157.6050808@schiefner.de> Message-ID: Yes, and it will be a good thing if this example will be followed soon by regulators in other countries. In a country with ~150 area codes (like the Netherlands) and a minimum intake of 1000 numbers per region, you can imagine how easy is for VoIP providers to start offering new SIP/ENUM services based on current regulations too much focused on geographical numbers. Adrian On Oct 19, 2004, at 11:04 PM, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Folks, > > are we witnessing a trend?! ;-) > > ComReg sets out framework for Voice Over Internet Services in Ireland > http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101858 > > [...] > The main decisions in this paper are as follows: > 1. ComReg intends to open a new number range (access code 076) for the > purposes of facilitating the introduction of VoIP services. > [...] > > Best, > > Carsten > > From jakob at rfc.se Tue Oct 19 23:56:01 2004 From: jakob at rfc.se (Jakob Schlyter) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:56:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM support in openH323 In-Reply-To: <4174EFC3.3080206@schiefner.de> References: <4174EFC3.3080206@schiefner.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > http://www.openh323.org/pipermail/openh323/2004-August/069519.html "By default, the domains e164.org, e164.arpa and e164.voxgratia.net will be used to to resolve phone numbers," interesting defaults for shipping code. jakob From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 20 00:33:39 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:33:39 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany In-Reply-To: <41757E3D.8070603@schiefner.de> References: <41757E3D.8070603@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <41759643.8010206@schiefner.de> Carsten Schiefner wrote: > RegTP, the German Regulator, yesterday held a foum on "Voice over IP - > Revolution or Evolution on the Telecommunications Market?" annonced on > 30 July: > > http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03017/ this is a way better link to how the process started: http://www.regtp.de/en/reg_tele/start/in_05-15-00-00-00_m/ Regards, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 20 00:36:23 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:36:23 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM support in openH323 In-Reply-To: References: <4174EFC3.3080206@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <417596E7.8020306@schiefner.de> Hi Jakob, Jakob Schlyter wrote: >On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> http://www.openh323.org/pipermail/openh323/2004-August/069519.html > > "By default, the domains e164.org, e164.arpa and e164.voxgratia.net will > be used to to resolve phone numbers," > > interesting defaults for shipping code. what you consider more/most "interesting": that there are more than one, the order or which ones have been picked? -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 20 01:04:17 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:04:17 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] DUNDi by Mark Spencer Message-ID: <41759D71.1030805@schiefner.de> Has anybody already digested this to some extent? Distributed Universal Number Discovery http://www.dundi.com/ An article on it has been published today at: http://voxilla.com/voxstory107-nested-order0-threshold0.html Best, -C. From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Oct 20 04:40:23 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:40:23 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> >One of the major outcomes is that allocation rules for 032 national >numbers will be out as early as 24 November (this year! ;-) and that >ranges may be applied for immediately afterwards. Really? I have heard this differently today from Thilo Salmon here at the VON: He said that it will take DT approx. year to have the routing for 032in place Richard -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de] Gesendet: Di 19.10.2004 22:51 An: enum-wg at ripe.net Cc: Betreff: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany Folks, RegTP, the German Regulator, yesterday held a foum on "Voice over IP - Revolution or Evolution on the Telecommunications Market?" annonced on 30 July: http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03017/ One of the major outcomes is that allocation rules for 032 national numbers will be out as early as 24 November (this year! ;-) and that ranges may be applied for immediately afterwards. The press release is at: http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03100/ The speech given by Matthias Kurth, RegTP's president, is at: http://www.regtp.de/imperia/md/content/en/aktuelles/Rede_Kurth_TK-Forum_2004_en.pdf Best, -C. From ag at ag-projects.com Wed Oct 20 05:16:29 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:16:29 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] DUNDi by Mark Spencer In-Reply-To: <41759D71.1030805@schiefner.de> References: <41759D71.1030805@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <6F21AFFF-2246-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> Aside from the technical aspect (I did not try to use the protocol myself yet) I cannot help noticing that once again technology moves ahead quickly to solve any barriers imposed on delegation and administration of E164 number space for VoIP. The acceptance of VoIP addressing of E164 space can depend on formal bodies (like ENUM model) or in this case by the fact that the installed base of Asterisk gateways is simply able to deploy an alternative without waiting for any green light. As even ENUM acceptance was driven by Asterisk solution, I cannot see what will stop DUNDI becoming a valid alternative. Perhaps the fact that in place of, or next to, DNS servers one will need to use Asterisk servers and routing of E164 numbers to non E164 addresses will not be trivial. Adrian On Oct 20, 2004, at 1:04 AM, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Has anybody already digested this to some extent? > > Distributed Universal Number Discovery > http://www.dundi.com/ > > An article on it has been published today at: > http://voxilla.com/voxstory107-nested-order0-threshold0.html > > Best, > > -C. From jakob at rfc.se Wed Oct 20 09:07:27 2004 From: jakob at rfc.se (Jakob Schlyter) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:07:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM support in openH323 In-Reply-To: <417596E7.8020306@schiefner.de> References: <4174EFC3.3080206@schiefner.de> <417596E7.8020306@schiefner.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > what you consider more/most "interesting": that there are more than one, > the order or which ones have been picked? I find it interesting that there are more than one by default. jakob From horn at toplink-plannet.de Wed Oct 20 09:46:14 2004 From: horn at toplink-plannet.de (John-Erik Horn) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:46:14 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> I tend to agree with Thilo. Does anyone really believe that an incumbent telco is going to "hurry up" and implement a brand new prefix and enable an innovative service to its own economic disadvantage? On the other hand are special prefixes for VoIP truly a step forward for VoIP services? Or are we being misled to develop our own subculture on the net and let ourselves become marginalized instead of truly converging the networks which in the ultimate consequence must mean using geographical "normal" teleophone numbers for VoIP services. Which also means seamless transitions between networks (IP and telco). I personally see the subjects prefix 032 (in Germany), ENUM validation and unbundling of the local loop as smoke bombs to distract the VoIP community. It is sad that the RegTP plays along with this game. Any of the above mentioned subjects could be solved and/or implemented within months, not years, if there was a will. Ubundling of the local loop: Reality in California, Norway, Vienna, Japan (see current edition of VON magazine). ENUM validation: 1) I can sign a DINA4 sheet of paper and have my telephone connection and all associated numbers ported from any current telco network to any other telco network willing to offer me telephony service. (I have actually done this often, works fine.) Takes 2 weeks max. 2) I can sign a sheet of paper (or even respond to an email) and have my web domains moved from one webhosting provider to the next. If it takes two weeks that's actually kind of slow. Works fine also! 3) I cannot sign a sheet of paper and have my telephone number simply assigned as an ENUM domain because this is apparently a BIG PROBLEM. Don't believe the hype. Prefix 032: Do we really want it? Do you think the telcos (incumbent or other) are really going to offer local charges for termination to such numbers? Will this appeal to the masses like special prefixes for cell phone networks? Greetz, John-Erik Horn VoIP Project Manager toplink-plannet GmbH Sch?nfeldstra?e 8 76131 Karlsruhe Tel: +49-721-663-6450 Fax: +49-721-663-6199 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stastny Richard" To: "Carsten Schiefner" ; Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany > >One of the major outcomes is that allocation rules for 032 national > >numbers will be out as early as 24 November (this year! ;-) and that > >ranges may be applied for immediately afterwards. > > Really? I have heard this differently today from Thilo Salmon here at the VON: > He said that it will take DT approx. year to have the routing for 032in place > > Richard > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Carsten Schiefner [mailto:enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de] > Gesendet: Di 19.10.2004 22:51 > An: enum-wg at ripe.net > Cc: > Betreff: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany > > > > Folks, > > RegTP, the German Regulator, yesterday held a foum on "Voice over IP - > Revolution or Evolution on the Telecommunications Market?" annonced on > 30 July: > > http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03017/ > > One of the major outcomes is that allocation rules for 032 national > numbers will be out as early as 24 November (this year! ;-) and that > ranges may be applied for immediately afterwards. > > The press release is at: > > http://www.regtp.de/en/aktuelles/pm/03100/ > > The speech given by Matthias Kurth, RegTP's president, is at: > > http://www.regtp.de/imperia/md/content/en/aktuelles/Rede_Kurth_TK-Forum_2004_en.pdf > > Best, > > -C. > > > > > From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 20 10:00:16 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:00:16 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <41761B10.4050406@schiefner.de> Hi Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: >>One of the major outcomes is that allocation rules for 032 national >>numbers will be out as early as 24 November (this year! ;-) and that >>ranges may be applied for immediately afterwards. > > Really? I have heard this differently today from Thilo Salmon here at the VON: > He said that it will take DT approx. year to have the routing for 032in place but this is no contradiction: having the rules in place and being able to apply for blocks does not necessarily mean that one is also able to get them routed immediately. This - and I fully agree with that - is a totally different story. Best, -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 20 10:13:05 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:13:05 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany In-Reply-To: <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> Message-ID: <41761E11.3030007@schiefner.de> Hi John-Erik, interesting points... John-Erik Horn wrote: > ENUM validation: > 1) I can sign a DINA4 sheet of paper and have my telephone > connection and all associated numbers ported from any > current telco network to any other telco network > willing to offer me telephony service. (I have actually done this often, > works fine.) > Takes 2 weeks max. Does it scale? Is it meant to scale because there is a need for scaling? Do we want to have the papershuffling? What is the number/percentage of people porting their number compared to initial/re-validation of a phone number? > 2) I can sign a sheet of paper (or even respond to an email) and have > my web domains moved from one webhosting provider to the next. > If it takes two weeks that's actually kind of slow. Works fine also! Not the same thing, I think. Changing providers has nothing to do with validation of the relation user<->E.164 number, IMHO this is about authentication whether a transfer of such an already validated relation may occur. > 3) I cannot sign a sheet of paper and have my telephone number simply > assigned as an ENUM domain because this is apparently a BIG PROBLEM. > Don't believe the hype. Of course you can have that - I did it with my provider, he got two faxes of my last bills. Question are: see 1) > Prefix 032: > Do we really want it? Do you think the telcos (incumbent or other) > are really going to offer local charges for termination to such numbers? What can be arguments against it that _sort_of_ would make sense? > Will this appeal to the masses like special prefixes for cell phone > networks? I think I don't get that point, I am afraid. Cheers, -C. From ag at ag-projects.com Wed Oct 20 10:57:52 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:57:52 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany In-Reply-To: <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> Message-ID: <1FE45BC2-2276-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> On Oct 20, 2004, at 9:46 AM, John-Erik Horn wrote: > I tend to agree with Thilo. > Does anyone really believe that an incumbent telco > is going to "hurry up" and implement a brand new prefix > and enable an innovative service to its own economic disadvantage? The only way to keep a telco business running is to invest in the future. No teleco will sell the same services of today in 5 years time. So by cannibalizing parts of revenue (which you can very well compensate by optimizing costs and gaining revenues form the new services) for new technologies you guarantee the survival of your telecom company. > On the other hand are special prefixes for VoIP truly a step forward > for > VoIP services? Yes, one problem with VoIP only numbers is that the caller network must know if 1) called number is allocated and 2) where the called number is to be found VoIP/PSTN. This is critical in order to avoid routing loops. Having ENUM void service and dedicated area code for IP only solve this problems. > Or are we being misled to develop our own subculture > on the net and let ourselves become marginalized instead of truly > converging the networks which in the ultimate consequence must mean > using geographical "normal" teleophone numbers for VoIP services. > Which also means seamless transitions between networks (IP and telco). Convergence means you have to start somewhere in a non disruptive way and find a smooth migration path. All who started with dedicated prefixes have achieved critical mass of VoIP subscribers the rest are still busy with debates. > I personally see the subjects prefix 032 (in Germany), ENUM validation > and > unbundling of the local loop as smoke bombs to distract the VoIP > community. No, is a ventilation shaft being open. > It is sad that the RegTP plays along with this game. > Any of the above mentioned subjects could be solved > and/or implemented within months, not years, if there was a will. It should but not everyone agrees to my points (they agree with you :-) > > Greetz, > John-Erik Horn > VoIP Project Manager > toplink-plannet GmbH > Sch?nfeldstra?e 8 > 76131 Karlsruhe > Tel: +49-721-663-6450 > Fax: +49-721-663-6199 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stastny Richard" > To: "Carsten Schiefner" ; > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 4:40 AM > Subject: Re: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany > > >>> One of the major outcomes is that allocation rules for 032 national >>> numbers will be out as early as 24 November (this year! ;-) and that >>> ranges may be applied for immediately afterwards. >> >> Really? I have heard this differently today from Thilo Salmon here at >> the > VON: >> He said that it will take DT approx. year to have the routing for >> 032in > place >> >> Richard >> From lwc at roke.co.uk Wed Oct 20 11:16:46 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:16:46 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany In-Reply-To: <41761E11.3030007@schiefner.de> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> <41761E11.3030007@schiefner.de> Message-ID: Hi Carsten, John-Erik, folks, If *I* don't pay, I don't care whether it scales or the paper-shuffling costs a fortune. Just ask the mobile phone network people what they do for number port - you will need to prepare for the description so that you don't laugh. Designing a solution susceptible to automation would be elegant, but it is not an absolute pre-requisite. Re. Number Ranges. As a customer I have a monthly contract that has a block of inclusive call minutes - the so-called free (hah!) minutes. I care whether I can call one of these numbers within my inclusive call minutes. Most (if not all) Operators exclude calls number translation service ranges (i.e. you pay for calls to these numbers). Thus if I have an 0845 xxxxxxx number or whatever in the UK, I will not be popular with those people who want to call me, AND may expect +44845 xxxxxxx to just not be routed from elsewhere. In Summary, I would like a geo number so it's routed from outside the UK and so it can be called within inclusive call bundles - don't forget this last one. That's why there are arguments *FOR INCOMING CALLS*. The idea that being tied to a geographical area is important for non-tariff/routing reasons is thin. A non-geo number prefix is a hint that Operators will play with the tariffs and will exclude this from inclusive call bundles. It's the "Mark of Cain" and (as a potential customer of VoIP-terminated service) I don't want such a number. However, the Regulators in some Countries seemed obsessed with Emergency Service, and whether or not someone using the phone must be informed that they might die if they try to place an emergency call via this thing that looks like a phone. If only to clarify their concerns, there's a GOOD argument that Emergency calls should be made using a non-geo number as CLI, so that the Emergency Services Operator has a hint that they need to ask where one is located. This is an overwhelming Argument, IMHO, *FOR OUTGOING CALLS*. Thus I'm greedy - as a potential customer, I don't care how much registration costs if someone else is paying, and I want both a geo AND a non-geo number for incoming and outgoing calls, respectively. all the best, Lawrence On 20 Oct 2004, at 09:13, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Hi John-Erik, > > interesting points... > > John-Erik Horn wrote: >> ENUM validation: >> 1) I can sign a DINA4 sheet of paper and have my telephone >> connection and all associated numbers ported from any >> current telco network to any other telco network >> willing to offer me telephony service. (I have actually done this >> often, >> works fine.) >> Takes 2 weeks max. > > Does it scale? Is it meant to scale because there is a need for > scaling? Do we want to have the papershuffling? What is the > number/percentage of people porting their number compared to > initial/re-validation of a phone number? > >> 2) I can sign a sheet of paper (or even respond to an email) and have >> my web domains moved from one webhosting provider to the next. >> If it takes two weeks that's actually kind of slow. Works fine also! > > Not the same thing, I think. Changing providers has nothing to do with > validation of the relation user<->E.164 number, IMHO this is about > authentication whether a transfer of such an already validated > relation may occur. > >> 3) I cannot sign a sheet of paper and have my telephone number simply >> assigned as an ENUM domain because this is apparently a BIG PROBLEM. >> Don't believe the hype. > > Of course you can have that - I did it with my provider, he got two > faxes of my last bills. Question are: see 1) > >> Prefix 032: >> Do we really want it? Do you think the telcos (incumbent or other) >> are really going to offer local charges for termination to such >> numbers? > > What can be arguments against it that _sort_of_ would make sense? > >> Will this appeal to the masses like special prefixes for cell phone >> networks? > > I think I don't get that point, I am afraid. > > Cheers, > > -C. > From horn at toplink-plannet.de Wed Oct 20 14:38:29 2004 From: horn at toplink-plannet.de (John-Erik Horn) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:38:29 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> <1FE45BC2-2276-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> Message-ID: <000d01c4b6a1$b5b144e0$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> -The only way to keep a telco business running is to invest in the -future. No teleco will sell the same services of today in 5 years time. -So by cannibalizing parts of revenue (which you can very well -compensate by optimizing costs and gaining revenues form the new -services) for new technologies you guarantee the survival of your -telecom company. I doubt that an incumbent (generally meaning the former state-controlled monopolist) will technologically help his competitors while he is trying to buy time and get his own VoIP-rollout ready for service. He will cannibalize his own income if that (reduced) income stays in his own pocket. He won't (voluntarily) help put that income into other peoples' pockets. That's not cannibalization, that's voluntary starvation. And that contradicts the will to survive. > On the other hand are special prefixes for VoIP truly a step forward > for > VoIP services? -Yes, one problem with VoIP only numbers is that the caller network must -know if 1) called number is allocated and 2) where the called number is -to be found VoIP/PSTN. This is critical in order to avoid routing -loops. Having ENUM void service and dedicated area code for IP only -solve this problems. That is not convergence. True convergence must mean not only convergence of networks but also of naming and adressing space. It should not matter to the caller where the target destination is located. If I use a VoIP channel or a POTS line is my problem and I should pick a service operator that offers seamless access from both networks. That should not be the problem of the caller. > Or are we being misled to develop our own subculture > on the net and let ourselves become marginalized instead of truly > converging the networks which in the ultimate consequence must mean > using geographical "normal" teleophone numbers for VoIP services. > Which also means seamless transitions between networks (IP and telco). -Convergence means you have to start somewhere in a non disruptive way -and find a smooth migration path. All who started with dedicated -prefixes have achieved critical mass of VoIP subscribers the rest are -still busy with debates. VoIP providers without a basic fee trying to make their money on cheap minutes are not business models that can/will scale or turn profit. So critical mass is a question for truly commercial voip providers. On top of that many of them do not have/offer direct customer access. They are parasites on the networks of other and they will never be able to offer QoS. And at the moment I see none in Germany and know of none in Europe that have anything worth being called a critical mass, economically speaking. And I doubt that our own special prefix for VoIP will help getting there. > I personally see the subjects prefix 032 (in Germany), ENUM validation > and > unbundling of the local loop as smoke bombs to distract the VoIP > community. -No, is a ventilation shaft being open. I mean the so-called debates on the above mentioned subjects are diversions. They are intended to stall the new VoIP kids on the block for time while the major players prepare their rollout and complete their testbeds (e.g. Deutsche Telekom with Alcatel in Slovakia). > It is sad that the RegTP plays along with this game. > Any of the above mentioned subjects could be solved > and/or implemented within months, not years, if there was a will. -It should but not everyone agrees to my points (they agree with you :-) Maybe. John-Erik From ag at ag-projects.com Wed Oct 20 15:12:43 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:12:43 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Meanwhile back in good ol' Germany In-Reply-To: <000d01c4b6a1$b5b144e0$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244394B@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> <003b01c4b678$dff80280$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> <1FE45BC2-2276-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> <000d01c4b6a1$b5b144e0$aa2aa8c0@tplrd001> Message-ID: > I doubt that an incumbent (generally meaning the former > state-controlled > monopolist) will technologically help his competitors while he is > trying to > buy time and get his own VoIP-rollout ready for service. I doubt this as well. It does not mean they will survive by (not) doing it, right? > He will cannibalize his own income if that (reduced) income stays in > his own > pocket. > He won't (voluntarily) help put that income into other peoples' > pockets. > That's not cannibalization, that's voluntary starvation. Yes and at day X you see on CNN company Y laid off without warning 3000 people. Why? Because they did not see it coming or they were to slow in adjusting to the reality. > And that contradicts the will to survive. It does, there are always winners and losers >> On the other hand are special prefixes for VoIP truly a step forward >> for >> VoIP services? > > -Yes, one problem with VoIP only numbers is that the caller network > must > -know if 1) called number is allocated and 2) where the called number > is > -to be found VoIP/PSTN. This is critical in order to avoid routing > -loops. Having ENUM void service and dedicated area code for IP only > -solve this problems. > > That is not convergence. True convergence must mean not only > convergence of networks but also of naming and adressing space. > It should not matter to the caller where the target destination is > located. If I use a VoIP channel or a POTS line is my problem and > I should pick a service operator that offers seamless access from > both networks. That should not be the problem of the caller. Convergence can mean a lot of different things whether you look at the OSI stack or business models. At this moment convergence practically means only that Internet and PSTN can at least carry the same voice service and interop together. After this step is done the real "convergence" will probably start happening. >> Or are we being misled to develop our own subculture >> on the net and let ourselves become marginalized instead of truly >> converging the networks which in the ultimate consequence must mean >> using geographical "normal" teleophone numbers for VoIP services. >> Which also means seamless transitions between networks (IP and telco). > > -Convergence means you have to start somewhere in a non disruptive way > -and find a smooth migration path. All who started with dedicated > -prefixes have achieved critical mass of VoIP subscribers the rest are > -still busy with debates. > > And at the moment I see none in Germany and know of none in Europe > that have anything worth being called a critical mass, economically > speaking. Because of the same regulatory issues pointed out earlier > I mean the so-called debates on the above mentioned subjects are > diversions. > They are intended to stall the new VoIP kids on the block for time > while the > major players prepare their rollout and complete their testbeds Could be, but incompetence scores far more often compared to big brother "conspirations" From richard at shockey.us Wed Oct 20 15:52:13 2004 From: richard at shockey.us (Richard Shockey) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:52:13 -0400 Subject: [enum-wg] DUNDi by Mark Spencer In-Reply-To: <6F21AFFF-2246-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> References: <41759D71.1030805@schiefner.de> <6F21AFFF-2246-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20041020094836.0541eeb0@joy.songbird.com> At 11:16 PM 10/19/2004, Adrian Georgescu wrote: >Aside from the technical aspect (I did not try to use the protocol myself >yet) I cannot help noticing that once again technology moves ahead quickly >to solve any barriers imposed on delegation and administration of E164 >number space for VoIP. The acceptance of VoIP addressing of E164 space >can depend on formal bodies (like ENUM model) or in this case by the fact >that the installed base of Asterisk gateways is simply able to deploy an >alternative without waiting for any green light. well look ... DUNDI is a very very clever approach to the problem of TN to URI translation but I think this really has application only in the enterprise private dial space where the number of peer to peer nodes is manageable. this is not going to scale to a global solution >As even ENUM acceptance was driven by Asterisk solution, well as ENUM co-chair I wouldnt say that >I cannot see what will stop DUNDI becoming a valid alternative. Its a very very useful tool in specific application environments IMHO thats all. >Perhaps the fact that in place of, or next to, DNS servers one will need >to use Asterisk servers and routing of E164 numbers to non E164 addresses >will not be trivial. > >Adrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar Inc. 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com ENUM +87810-13313-31331 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 or ; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 20 17:30:46 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:30:46 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM support in openH323 In-Reply-To: References: <4174EFC3.3080206@schiefner.de> <417596E7.8020306@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <417684A6.1040209@schiefner.de> Hi Jakob, Jakob Schlyter wrote: >On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> what you consider more/most "interesting": that there are more than >> one, the order or which ones have been picked? > > I find it interesting that there are more than one by default. well, it doesn't totally meet my concept of "default" either - but then again this kind of "default" has been well introduced with Asterisk AFAIK... -C. From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 20 19:15:53 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:15:53 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum Message-ID: <41769D49.5070800@schiefner.de> ...is out: http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101861 However, the only three pages appear to be mere cover pages or an introduction - even more, when the second last paragraph states: "All of the above issues are further clarified and discussed in the accompanying report, prepared by PA Consulting Group on behalf of the Forum." So can the actual report be found on the forum's website then? If there is any website - Google says no, though... Niall? Best, Carsten From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Wed Oct 20 20:53:20 2004 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:53:20 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum In-Reply-To: <41769D49.5070800@schiefner.de> References: <41769D49.5070800@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <4F909B7F-22C9-11D9-97A3-000393B02BAC@ucd.ie> Carsten, I can't throw very much light on this, I'm afraid. As I understood until now, the participants in the Forum have yet to meet to declare consensus and bless the report. This announcement leaves me surprised and confused. I don't understand how it has appeared at this stage, when the Forum hasn't actually had a meeting since the appearance of the draft report. You're right that we don't have a shop-window web-site. On 20 Oct 2004, at 18:15, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > ...is out: > > http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101861 > > However, the only three pages appear to be mere cover pages or an > introduction - even more, when the second last paragraph states: > > "All of the above issues are further clarified and discussed in the > accompanying report, prepared by PA Consulting Group on behalf of the > Forum." > > So can the actual report be found on the forum's website then? If > there is any website - Google says no, though... > > Niall? > > Best, > > Carsten > > > Best regards, Niall O'Reilly PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Oct 20 21:55:06 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:55:06 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443951@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> ;-) It seems to be some kind of hide-and-seek. the reports are on the same page, you have jsut to find it ;-) On the left side in the Irish Green you find: ComReg sets out framework for Voice over Internet Services in Ireland spacer Thursday, October 14, 2004 spacer ComReg today set out the framework for the provision of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services in Ireland.... spacer Media Relase : ComReg sets out framework for Voice Over Internet Services in Ireland Document : Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP): A Guide Document : VOIP Services in Ireland: Numbering and related issues or http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101858 (which is the same page) http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101857 http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101856 which is the docuemnt you look for."Numbering and related Issues" regards Richard BTW: Niell, sorry, but this seems NOT to be a draft report, it is the answer to the consultation -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Niall O'Reilly [mailto:niall.oreilly at ucd.ie] Gesendet: Mi 20.10.2004 20:53 An: Carsten Schiefner Cc: Niall O'Reilly; enum-wg at ripe.net; Irish ENUM Forum Forum Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum Carsten, I can't throw very much light on this, I'm afraid. As I understood until now, the participants in the Forum have yet to meet to declare consensus and bless the report. This announcement leaves me surprised and confused. I don't understand how it has appeared at this stage, when the Forum hasn't actually had a meeting since the appearance of the draft report. You're right that we don't have a shop-window web-site. On 20 Oct 2004, at 18:15, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > ...is out: > > http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101861 > > However, the only three pages appear to be mere cover pages or an > introduction - even more, when the second last paragraph states: > > "All of the above issues are further clarified and discussed in the > accompanying report, prepared by PA Consulting Group on behalf of the > Forum." > > So can the actual report be found on the forum's website then? If > there is any website - Google says no, though... > > Niall? > > Best, > > Carsten > > > Best regards, Niall O'Reilly PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Wed Oct 20 21:59:08 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:59:08 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443952@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Maybe this is the reason why some people in Ireland did not know about the report, they do not accept e-mail from the outside anymore. Richard -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Stastny Richard Gesendet: Mi 20.10.2004 21:55 An: Niall O'Reilly; Carsten Schiefner Cc: Niall O'Reilly; enum-wg at ripe.net; Irish ENUM Forum Forum Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum Ihre Nachricht hat keinen oder nicht alle Empf?nger erreicht. Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum Gesendet: 20.10.2004 21:55 Folgende(r) Empf?nger konnte(n) nicht erreicht werden: Irish ENUM Forum Forum am 20.10.2004 21:55 Fehler bei der SMTP-Kommunikation mit dem E-Mail-Server des Empf?ngers. Wenden Sie sich an Ihren Systemadministrator. From ag at ag-projects.com Wed Oct 20 22:43:40 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:43:40 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Article: Dutch regulator publishes consultation on VoIP Message-ID: " The Dutch regulatory authority, OPTA, yesterday published a consultation document on voice over internet protocol (VoIP), concerning "generic obligations of providers of packet switched voice services towards end-users." Read more: http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=3738 The document mentioned in the article is however nowhere to be found. Adrian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 415 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ag at ag-projects.com Wed Oct 20 23:24:24 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:24:24 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] and the document from OPTA (dutch only) Message-ID: <6A1F6CDE-22DE-11D9-A60F-000D93C0D140@ag-projects.com> http://www.opta.nl/download/04202992_consultatie%20_openbaar_.pdf From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Thu Oct 21 05:05:01 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:05:01 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] DUNDi: big brother is watching you Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443956@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Big brother is watching you ;-) http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/categories/voip/2004/10/20.html#a730 Distributed Universal Number Discovery = DUNDi The Distributed Universal Number Discovery (DUNDi ), from Digium , is a peer to peer system for locating Internet gateways to telephony services. Unlike traditional hierarchical services such as ENUM , DUNDi is a distributed sysem with no centralized authority. An implementation of DUNDi exists in Asterisk , an Open Source PBX. For further information, see: * DUNDi Core Members * DUNDi Whitepaper * General Peering Agreement * DUNDi Internet Draft * DUNDi Best Practices * DUNDi Press Release * DUNDi Mailing List More information can be found in a related article from the people at Voxilla . Also worth reading are the VoIP peering discussions on this mailing list . From kim at centr.org Thu Oct 21 10:34:48 2004 From: kim at centr.org (Kim Davies) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:34:48 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] ENUM Survey Compilation Message-ID: <417774A8.2010405@centr.org> Dear all, Last week the web page with the working group's ENUM survey was updated with all the responses received to date. You can see it here: http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html It would be nice to have some more submissions and feedback! A number responded that they would undertake to answer it but never came back, so now would be an ideal opportunity. kim -- Kim Davies, Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries Avenue Louise 327, B-1050 Brussels; Tel. +32 2 627 5550 From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Oct 21 13:36:10 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:36:10 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum In-Reply-To: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443951@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> References: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F162443951@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> Message-ID: <41779F2A.5090904@schiefner.de> Richard, Stastny Richard wrote: > ;-) > It seems to be some kind of hide-and-seek. the reports are on the same page, you have jsut to find it ;-) > > On the left side in the Irish Green you find: > > > ComReg sets out framework for Voice over Internet Services in Ireland > spacer > Thursday, October 14, 2004 > spacer > ComReg today set out the framework for the provision of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services in Ireland.... > spacer > Media Relase : ComReg sets out framework for Voice Over Internet Services in Ireland Document : Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP): A Guide Document : VOIP Services in Ireland: Numbering and related issues > > or > http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101858 (which is the same page) > > http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101857 > > http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101856 > > which is the docuemnt you look for."Numbering and related Issues" not really, I am afraid: this is purely VoIP related, ENUM is hardly mentioned. However, ComReg announced the Irish ENUM Forum report (82 pages! ;-) today - it's at: http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101862 As said already yesterday, the introduction three pages long is at: http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101861 Regards, Carsten From paf at cisco.com Thu Oct 21 17:19:51 2004 From: paf at cisco.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:19:51 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New co-chair of the ENUM WG Message-ID: This is, I think, the right amount of time after the RIPE Meeting in Manchester to bring up this question. At the meeting, we got a volunteer to become the 3rd co-chair of the ENUM wg at RIPE. The person is Niall O'Reilly. If you have any objections to add Niall, please let me and Kim know. The time to object is (I decide myself) 2 weeks from now, after which Kim and myself will make a decision based on the input on whether we will send a recommendation to the RIPE leadership to add Niall. Regards, Patrik From paf at cisco.com Thu Oct 21 18:42:20 2004 From: paf at cisco.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:42:20 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New co-chair of the ENUM WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2D2F983A-2380-11D9-9D24-000A95B2B926@cisco.com> One person pointed out that encouragement should also be welcome to send to the chairs, and of course it is! It is nice to hear good things about people and not only complaints. paf On Oct 21, 2004, at 17:19, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > This is, I think, the right amount of time after the RIPE Meeting in > Manchester to bring up this question. > > At the meeting, we got a volunteer to become the 3rd co-chair of the > ENUM wg at RIPE. > > The person is Niall O'Reilly. > > If you have any objections to add Niall, please let me and Kim know. > The time to object is (I decide myself) 2 weeks from now, after which > Kim and myself will make a decision based on the input on whether we > will send a recommendation to the RIPE leadership to add Niall. > > Regards, Patrik > From enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de Thu Oct 21 19:28:25 2004 From: enumvoipsip.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:28:25 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New co-chair of the ENUM WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4177F1B9.40206@schiefner.de> Patrik, this is excellent news - Niall has my full endorsement. Niall, thanks a lot for volunteering. 8-D Cheers, -C. Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > This is, I think, the right amount of time after the RIPE Meeting in > Manchester to bring up this question. > > At the meeting, we got a volunteer to become the 3rd co-chair of the > ENUM wg at RIPE. > > The person is Niall O'Reilly. > > If you have any objections to add Niall, please let me and Kim know. The > time to object is (I decide myself) 2 weeks from now, after which Kim > and myself will make a decision based on the input on whether we will > send a recommendation to the RIPE leadership to add Niall. > > Regards, Patrik From ag at ag-projects.com Thu Oct 21 20:09:03 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:09:03 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] New co-chair of the ENUM WG In-Reply-To: <4177F1B9.40206@schiefner.de> References: <4177F1B9.40206@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <4A58F9FE-238C-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> Totally in consensus with Carsten. Congratulations Niall! Best regards, Adrian On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:28 PM, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Patrik, > > this is excellent news - Niall has my full endorsement. > > Niall, > > thanks a lot for volunteering. 8-D > > Cheers, > > -C. > > Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: >> This is, I think, the right amount of time after the RIPE Meeting in >> Manchester to bring up this question. >> At the meeting, we got a volunteer to become the 3rd co-chair of the >> ENUM wg at RIPE. >> The person is Niall O'Reilly. >> If you have any objections to add Niall, please let me and Kim know. >> The time to object is (I decide myself) 2 weeks from now, after which >> Kim and myself will make a decision based on the input on whether we >> will send a recommendation to the RIPE leadership to add Niall. >> Regards, Patrik > > From lwc at roke.co.uk Fri Oct 22 12:08:23 2004 From: lwc at roke.co.uk (Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:08:23 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] Check on NAPTR Order field value default Message-ID: <4F183089-2412-11D9-809D-000393A70BB2@roke.co.uk> Hi Folks, Adrian picked up an inconsistency between the IETF and ETSI documents. These give two different default values for the Order field of NAPTRs. I propose to change the ETSI document (current proposed default = 10) to fit with the IETF document (current proposed default = 100). So, as a quick (like before the end of the weekend) poll, does anyone use a NAPTR order field value of 10 as opposed to 100? - the ones I've checked use 100, and only mine have order field = 10. all the best, Lawrence From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Oct 22 12:31:22 2004 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:31:22 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] New co-chair of the ENUM WG In-Reply-To: Message from =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= of "Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:19:51 +0200." Message-ID: <27384.1098441082@gromit.rfc1035.com> Patrik, I think the addition of Niall as co-chair would be wonderful. From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Fri Oct 22 13:14:32 2004 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:14:32 +0100 Subject: [enum-wg] New co-chair of the ENUM WG In-Reply-To: <27384.1098441082@gromit.rfc1035.com> References: <27384.1098441082@gromit.rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <8CBE106A-241B-11D9-8B22-000393B02BAC@ucd.ie> On 22 Oct 2004, at 09:25, Samia M'timet wrote: > This is indeed a great news ! It put the linguistic hurdle at the > right height ... Someone must have hacked my local public library and worked out that I'm trying to learn some Swedish for the next RIPE meeting. I'm not prepared either to confirm or to deny this. Seriously though, I'm overwhelmed by the reaction from so many directions. It feels totally (and delightfully) OTT. I really appreciate all the affirmation and encouragement, but I can't help thinking there must be more pressing topics for the list. Thank you all! Best regards, Niall O'Reilly PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 PS. This all reminds me of the 'get' command on the English-language version of QZKOM. Anyone else remember it? /N From ag at ag-projects.com Sun Oct 24 16:32:17 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:32:17 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] RO ENUM Survey Compilation In-Reply-To: <417774A8.2010405@centr.org> References: <417774A8.2010405@centr.org> Message-ID: <81B170BF-25C9-11D9-BBDF-000A95C7765A@ag-projects.com> 1. What is the country and E.164 code? CC +40 Fixed number length 2. Who is the delegate for the E.164 code? Romanian ENUM Mapping ROENUM Registry person: Eugenie I Staicut address: Str. Radu Boiangiu nr. 8 address: Sector 1 address: Bucharest 7000 address: Romania phone: +40-21 224 08 74 fax-no: +40-21 224 08 74 e-mail: estaicut at enum.ro 3. The status of deployment (notdelegated>applied>delegated/objected>trial>hiatus>production) Current Status: production 4.ENUM Project contact details (telephone, email, web) Adrian Georgescu AG Projects Postbus 2265 2002 CG Haarlem +31-20-8005169 ag at ag-projects.com www.ag-projects.com 5. Is a trial being, or going to be, conducted? 3 months private trial conducted during springs/summer 2004 5a. Types of numbers used in the trial? -numbers for private networks 6. Is there work or plans toward full permanent deployment? Yes 6a. Types of numbers for production? - numbers for private networks +4031PP0XXXX Bucharest where PP operator code (e,g, 71 for Euroweb) and +403ABPPXXXX Rest of the country where PP = Private Operator code (e,g, 71 for Euroweb) AB = Geographic area code (e.g. 41 for Constanta city) XXXX = Subscriber part - location-independent (non-geographical) fixed network numbers +408088XXXXX 7. Who is leading the ENUM project? (government, industry working group, etc.) Industry working group with no government participation AG Projects www.ag-projects.com Contact: Adrian Georgescu ag at ag-projects.com +31-20-8005169 EUROWEB Romania www.euroweb.ro Contact: Catalin Scarlat catalin.scarlat at euroweb.ro PSTN: +40-31-7100010 ENUM: +40-31-7100010 8. Who operates the ccTLD for that country at present? Research Institute for Informatics (RNC) Bd. Averescu 8-10, Sector 1, Bucharest 71316 Romania Phone: +40-21-2240762? Fax: +40-21-2241084? www.rnc.ro 9. What type of organisation runs the ccTLD? (state, private, academic, etc.) State owned (established by Department of Research, Ministry of Education and Research) 10.What is the ccTLD legal regulation, if any? See: www.rnc.ro 11.Who is the current Tier 1 registry? rnc.ro 12.Who is, or will be, the permanent Tier 1 registry? rnc.ro 13.How will the Tier 1 registry selection be made? Unknown 14.How will the method of cost recovery for the Tier 1 registry's operations? Unknown 15.Will there be more than one Tier 1 provider for the country? Unknown 16.Will there be ENUM registrars? Yes 17.What will be the ENUM validation technique? Provider validation for numbers belonging to private networks. Unknown for other network types. 18.Is there/will there be a special number block for ENUM and/or IP Telephony? Unknown 19.Is there special treatment for unlisted numbers? No 20.Are there any plans for infrastructure ENUM? Unknown 21.What is your ENUM WHOIS address? None 22.Please provide the history of ENUM trials, projects etc., if any. 2004-02 First contact between AG Projects with Euroweb Romania (private voice operator) 2004-04 First contact between AG Projects with ANRC (Romanian Telecom Regulator) ANRC had no direct interest for participating in an ENUM trial but encouraged any initiative from the private sector 2004-05 First technical trials of AG Projects with EUROWEB internal numbering plan 2004-06 First delegation of ANRC E164 assigned number range (+4031710XXXX) under official ENUM tree 0.1.7.1.3.0.4.e164.arpa 2004-07 First SIP service connected to ENUM in Romania (eurovoice.ro) SIP subscribers can be reached using ENUM +4031710XXXX 2004-09 +4031710 range is reachable from public PSTN network 2004-10 First commercial ENUM/SIP product launched by EUROWEB Romania 23.What are your future plans? (and dates if available) Enable multiple cities to join ENUM numbering plan of EUROWEB network 24.What is your date estimate on a production ENUM registry launch? Unknown On Oct 21, 2004, at 10:34 AM, Kim Davies wrote: > Dear all, > > Last week the web page with the working group's ENUM survey was > updated with all the responses received to date. You can see it here: > > http://www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html > > It would be nice to have some more submissions and feedback! A number > responded that they would undertake to answer it but never came back, > so now would be an ideal opportunity. > > kim > -- > Kim Davies, Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries > Avenue Louise 327, B-1050 Brussels; Tel. +32 2 627 5550 > From albert.redmond at comreg.ie Thu Oct 21 11:40:36 2004 From: albert.redmond at comreg.ie (Albert Redmond) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:40:36 +0100 Subject: [enum] [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum {01} Message-ID: <3E06F750B42A554F9B46704A522983D601D2D3C8@ODTR-CLEXCH01.internal.odtr.ie> Folks, Apologies for the confusion. Our Press Office had forgotten to activate the accompanying PA Report on the ComReg website. It's there now. A draft of the report had been circulated to the Forum by PA Consulting on Friday 24th September for comments by 30th September. This report was based on the one circulated and discussed last April and the ENUM trial to date. We understood that several comments were received and incorporated into the final document. ComReg had given a public commitment to publish the report by September '04, so we're running late! It also happens to coincide nicely with a paper we published on VoIP last week. Finally, if there are significant further learnings from the trial, the report will be updated in March '05. I hope this clarifies the situation. Best regards, Albert Redmond Senior Manager, Market Framework ComReg. -----Original Message----- From: Niall O'Reilly [mailto:niall.oreilly at ucd.ie] Sent: 20 October 2004 19:53 To: enum at consult.odtr.ie Cc: Niall O'Reilly; enum-wg at ripe.net; Irish ENUM Forum Forum Subject: [enum] [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum {01} Carsten, I can't throw very much light on this, I'm afraid. As I understood until now, the participants in the Forum have yet to meet to declare consensus and bless the report. This announcement leaves me surprised and confused. I don't understand how it has appeared at this stage, when the Forum hasn't actually had a meeting since the appearance of the draft report. You're right that we don't have a shop-window web-site. On 20 Oct 2004, at 18:15, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > ...is out: > > http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101861 > > However, the only three pages appear to be mere cover pages or an > introduction - even more, when the second last paragraph states: > > "All of the above issues are further clarified and discussed in the > accompanying report, prepared by PA Consulting Group on behalf of the > Forum." > > So can the actual report be found on the forum's website then? If > there is any website - Google says no, though... > > Niall? > > Best, > > Carsten > > > Best regards, Niall O'Reilly PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 From Alan.Judge at eircom.net Thu Oct 21 12:23:33 2004 From: Alan.Judge at eircom.net (Alan Judge) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:23:33 +0100 Subject: [enum] [enum-wg] Report of the Irish ENUM Forum {02} In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041021102333.GA19777@eircom.net> > A draft of the report had been circulated to the Forum by PA Consulting > on Friday 24th September for comments by 30th September. This report was > based on the one circulated and discussed last April and the ENUM trial > to date. We understood that several comments were received and > incorporated into the final document. For what it's worth at this stage, I'd note that most of my comments weren't incorporated and I wouldn't have voted to approve the report in the form that was published. Apart from a number of errors, there is mention of a reference document and various processes and policies that the forum hasn't even seen, let alone reached consensus on. I've found the forum experience interesting and educational. I hope everyone else has too. I look forward to hearing how the trial goes. Regards, Alan Alan Judge, Head of Research and Development Phone: +353-1-7010911 eircom net Fax: +353-1-7010901 From Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at Tue Oct 26 13:35:20 2004 From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:35:20 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Fwd: ETSI Plugtests ENUM Call for Expert and extension of Task Force Message-ID: <06CF906FE3998C4E944213062009F16244397F@oefeg-s02.oefeg.loc> FYI -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Patrick Ren? Guillemin [mailto:Patrick.Guillemin at etsi.org] Gesendet: Di 26.10.2004 12:03 An: Plugtests Cc: PLUGETSTS-ENUM at LIST.ETSI.ORG; enum at ietf.org; sip at ietf.org; TISPAN_WG4 Betreff: ETSI Plugtests ENUM Call for Expert and extension of Task Force Dear All, CALL FOR ONE ENUM INDEPENDENT EXPERT AND VOLUNTEERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE TASK FORCE TO SUPPORT THE 1ST ENUM INTEROPERABILITY EVENT (Spring 2005) The ETSI Plugtests Interoperability service, hosted the first ENUM Workshop event in February 2004 to serve the whole global market in cooperation with the ETSI TC TISPAN committee. The ETSI Plugtests service is independent and has, over the last 4 years, gained a unique experience in organising 50 events for a broad range of domains. Further information on the service is available at www.etsi.org/plugtests. While being part of the ETSI structure, this service is self-financed and fully independent. Half of the organized events are related to non ETSI Standards (e.g. IPv6, SIP, Bluetooth, etc). The ETSI Plugtests service is now preparing a 1st ENUM interoperability event to be held spring 2005 with the objective of having a broad technical scope to address ENUM technologies. Preliminary ENUM tests could be conducted during the 1st NGN Plugtests from 29-Nov to 3-Dec: http://www.etsi.org/plugtests/NGN_VoIP.htm To serve all the global ENUM solutions and all involved companies in an open, independent and transparent process, ETSI is looking for further assistance and support in two directions: 1) CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT ETSI Plugtests Service is looking for appointing an independent expert mainly to assist in the definition of the ENUM interoperability event, its architecture, its test bed and on the test cases to be performed. This expert will be under contractual arrangement with ETSI and under the financial rules of the EU eEurope programme. He will coordinate the work under the supervision of both the ETSI TC TISPAN committee and an independent task force to be set-up for providing main input to the programme. The expert effort can be estimated in a range of 40 to 80 days. Should you like to be candidate for such expertise, please send your application and references to philippe.cousin at etsi.org (CC patrick.guillemin at etsi.org and plugtests at etsi.org) before 15 November 2004. 2) CALL FOR ADDITIONNAL VOLUNTEERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO A FIRST ENUM INTEROPERABILITY EVENT TASK FORCE ETSI Interoperability Service is looking for volunteers to extend the task force (EPTF, ENUM Plugtests Task Force) for providing inputs and guidance to the 1st Interoperability event in a more open, transparent and independent manner as possible . The main objective of this task force assisted by dedicated resources of an independent expert is to provide guidance of the architecture, the test beds, and the test cases. This 1st interoperability event should address all the interoperability concerns for the ENUM solutions. Should you like to be candidate to participate to this Task force, please send your application and references to Patrick.guillemin at etsi.org CC plugtests at etsi.org before 15 November 2004. Any expert is welcome, even non-ETSI members as long as the expert is committed to actively and constructively contribute to the work. It is expected that most of the work could be done by email and audio-conference but meeting(s) can also be convened when necessary. I am looking forward to getting a lot of applications and support Best regards Patrick GUILLEMIN, Coordinator of EPTF ETSI - Plugtests Technical Coordinator http://www.etsi.org/plugtests tel +33 (0)4 92 94 43 31 and Philippe COUSIN Interoperability Service Manager + 33 (0)4 92 94 43 06 From ag at ag-projects.com Fri Oct 29 19:13:36 2004 From: ag at ag-projects.com (Adrian Georgescu) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:13:36 +0200 Subject: [enum-wg] Fwd: [Enum] FYI news on CC 1 Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Shockey > Date: October 29, 2004 6:09:13 PM CEST > To: enum at ietf.org > Subject: [Enum] FYI news on CC 1 > > > I'm hoping to have a "special guest star" at the Monday night meeting > to give us some more details on this. > > ############# > > For Immediate Release: Media Contact: Jackie Henson McKenna Long and > Aldridge LLP 202-496-7549 jhenson at mckennalong.com > > TOP TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNET COMPANIES FORM COUNTRY CODE 1 > ENUM LLC TO FOSTER NEW INTERNET TELECOM TECHNOLOGY New Organization to > Promote Development of Technology to Combine Internet with Traditional > Telephony to Offer Streamlined Communication > > > Washington DC - (October 28, 2004) - Today, several leading > telecommunications and Internet companies have announced the formation > of a new organization, the Country Code 1 ENUM Limited Liability > Company (CC1 ENUM LLC), to build the public infrastructure that will > promote the development of ENUM technology in a single, carrier-class > manner within the countries of the North American Numbering Plan > (NANP). The countries of the NANP include the United States, Canada > and the Caribbean nations. > > ENUM is a technology that allows users to combine the resources of > the Internet with traditional telephony, uniting these two diverse > worlds of communications and enabling a whole new range of > communication applications.? The ENUM system effectively enables > individuals, businesses and other organizations to maximize the use of > both the public Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network > (PSTN) by associating telephone numbers with Internet domain names.?? > As a result, phone numbers can be used to send traditional telephony > services like voice calls or faxes which can be converted to digital > packets for delivery to a variety of devices. > > A common ENUM system becomes increasingly essential as applications > like voice over IP (VoIP) become more widely adopted.? The ENUM system > bridges the technology gap between the public Internet and the Public > Switched Telephone Network so that VoIP users of different service > providers can communicate more simply with each other. > > Through the launch of this new organization, the founding companies > are seeking to build a commercial implementation consistent with the > relevant open standards of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) > and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) upon which ENUM is > based.? The new company will help to implement a single, public ENUM > system for those nations within the NANP that choose to participate.? > It is intended that the North American implementation of ENUM will > adhere to national and industry privacy requirements.? The LLC?s first > task will involve selection of a vendor to take the initial steps > towards creation of an infrastructure that would enable the countries > within the NANP to establish their own national ENUM implementations. > The limited liability company will also be responsible for selecting a > vendor to develop the national infrastructure for the United States. > > Country Code 1 ENUM LLC will manage the public infrastructure that > translates traditional telephone numbers into Internet domain names, > combining the reach and capabilities of the Internet with the Public > Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) to enable new communications > capabilities.? CC1 ENUM LLC members include AT&T, GoDaddy.com, MCI, > SBC Laboratories, Sprint, and Verizon. > > > # # # > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza? -?? Sterling, VA? 20166 > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org?? sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com > ENUM +87810-13313-31331 > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,? Fax: +1 > 815.333.1237 > or > > ; > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > _______________________________________________ > enum mailing list > enum at ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5152 bytes Desc: not available URL: