[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Enum] Carrier ENUM mini-BoF Agenda
I still do not know what should be on the agenda
of the Carrier ENUM mini-BoF.
Sofar two issues have been raised:
1. Privacy, but this is a non-issue for Carrier ENUM
(it may be discussed in the User ENUM part)
2. Usage of Carrier ENUM for transit routing
I said related to this issue
"ENUM as it is now is not providing these functions, one
should use TRIP or OSP for this.
The mini-BoF may discuss this issue and may come
to a conclusion. (reject the issue or extend ENUM)"
I have seen NO comment on this on the list.
BTW, I have seen besides the privacy issue
NO comment related to Carrier ENUM on this list sofar
so there seem to be either no interest or nobody
already implementing Carrier ENUM is coming forward.
Either way, we may skip the topic.
Richard
> Richard Stastny
ÃFEG
Ãsterreichische Fernmeldetechnische Entwicklungs- und FÃrderungsgesellschaft mbH
BÃroadresse: Arsenal Objekt 24, 7. Stock, Bauteil Ost, A-1030 Wien
Postadresse: Postfach 147, A-1103 Wien
Telefon: +43 664 420 4100
Telefax: +43 1 79780 13
E-Mail: <mailto:richard.stastny at oefeg.at>
Web: <http://www.oefeg.at>
Die in dieser Mitteilung und AnhÃngen enthaltenen Informationen sind ausschlieÃlich fÃr den Adressaten bestimmt und kÃnnen geheime, vertrauliche oder vor Weitergabe geschÃtzte Informationen enthalten. Falls es sich beim Leser dieses Absatzes nicht um den beabsichtigten EmpfÃnger oder dessen Vertretung handelt, wird er hiermit in Kenntnis gesetzt, dass jegliche Weitergabe, Verteilung oder VervielfÃltigung dieser Mitteilung verboten ist. Sollte dieses Schreiben irrtÃmlich zugestellt worden sein, wird gebeten, den Absender zu benachrichtigen und die Mitteilung zu lÃschen, ohne Kopien einzubehalten. Danke.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stastny Richard
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:29 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: enum at ietf.org
Subject: AW: [Enum] Carrier ENUM mini-BoF Agenda
So given Steven questions, my "User ENUM" definitions
and Richards "Carrier TN to URI translation mechanisms" aka "Carrier ENUM",
Â
I want to try to give an answer toÂquestion 1b first, before I address 1a
Â
a: within User ENUM there exist privacy issues.
ÂÂÂ set-up properly these issues do not exist in "Carrier ENUM",
ÂÂÂ because either the information is not accessible or not usable
ÂÂÂ by end-users.
ÂÂÂ Note: all privacy issues with ENUM should thereore be discussed
ÂÂÂ in the first half of the meeting, not in the mini-BoF on "Carrier ENUM"
Â
b. "User ENUM" is end-to-end and therefore opt-in
Â-ÂÂService providers wanting to deploy a routing of calls
ÂÂÂ between their networks avoiding the PSTN as interconnect
ÂÂÂ need a tool on the Internet to achieve this goal. (This
ÂÂÂ tool is also necessary if no PSTN exists anymore ;-)
ÂÂ-ÂThey may choose to use the technology as defined
ÂÂÂ in RFC3761 at al.
 -ÂTo achieve this they have to includeÂALL E.164 numbers assigend
ÂÂÂÂ to them andÂthey in turn assigned to the end-users they
ÂÂÂÂ are providing service for (anybody an idea of a better wording?)
ÂÂÂÂ so opt-in is not possible.
-ÂÂ confederations of service providers may choose any domain in
ÂÂÂ the DNS as root for their tree, they may even chooseÂa "private DNS"
Â
 - IfÂa service provider Âpopulates the tree only with E.164 numbers
ÂÂÂÂ assigned to him, a later merging of trees is trivial, because no overlaps
ÂÂÂÂ exist.
 - currently also nor additional requirements on the ENUM protocol
ÂÂÂ are known. If there are, please come forward now.
Â
Warning: the above definition is only valid if "carrier ENUM" is
only used for routing to destination service providers hosting the
numbers they hold in the tree.
Â
So
1a: What are the issues/problems that need to be addressed?
Recently some requirements have been discussed to use
ENUM and especially "carrier ENUM" for additional
purposes,e.g. routing to transit providers if they also
provide gateways to the PSTN.
Â
Although this is in principle possible with ENUM, this
is not recommended because it may cause conflicts in
domain ownerships and make it impossible to merge
trees later.
Â
Since in most cases routing to the PSTN is involved,
this immediately raises the question of settlement and
alternative routes.
ENUM as it is now is not providing these functions, one
should use TRIP or OSP for this.
Â
The mini-BoF may discuss this issue and may come
to a conclusion. (reject the issue or extend ENUM)
Richard
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum