RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

["Pfautz, Penn L, NEO" <ppfautz at att.com>]

Klaus:
Unfortunately not all portability implementations use network databases
(I assume it's network databases rather
Rather than admin ones to which you refer) Maybe some of those whose
countries use "onward routing" etc. can confirm
whether there is any centralized database outside of the network
detailing those arrangements. 

Nonetheless, I do think that for the most part it will be possible to
determine who the carrier providing the PSTN point of interface for an
E.164 number is and thus the carrier-of-record for carrier ENUM. If this
information were not generally available the E.164 number would not be
of much use anyway. I could think of workarounds even in the
non-centralized LNP situations and, frankly, if those cause some pain,
if should be thought of in terms of penance for making an erroneous
choice with respect to the implementation of number portability. (:-)

The day may/should/will come when interconnection is all IP-based and
some form of ENUM Registry IS the database of record for number
assignment and then we can have a debate about what it means to be
carrier of record again, but for now the approach of using the entity
that provides the number assignment/PSTN PoI is, I think, quite
workable.

Penn Pfautz

-----Original Message-----
From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Nieminen Klaus
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:00 AM
To: enum at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM

Hello, 

One clarification:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Stastny Richard
> Sent: 11. lokakuuta 2005 14:28
> To: Antoin Verschuren; enum at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Enum] A proposal for Carrier ENUM
> 
>> In the private contract between the terminating party and number
>> holder, the terminating party can simply insist that the contract is
only
>> valid (they can only offer the service) if the number holder enters
his 
>> numberblock in the Carier ENUM tree, delegating it to the terminating

>> party. The carrier ENUM tree is then simply the place where a
>> carrier-of-record is defined, as the NRA does not have this
information.
>
> Is it true that the NRA does not have this information?

At least in some cases NRAs do not have information about the network
that serves the numbers directly assigned to the users. I do not know,
if the same problem exists also for number ranges assigned to telcos,
but I assume that this may be tha case at least for numbers that are
further delegated to other service providers (e.g. Skype) by a contract.

For ported numbers I believe that all implementations involve the use of
databases that contain information on the network with which ported
numbers are associated. Therefore this should not be a problem.

regards,

- Klaus -
___________________________________________
KLAUS NIEMINEN
Senior Adviser
Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority
Internet and Information Security
P.O. Box 313
FIN-00181 HELSINKI
FINLAND
tel.: +358 9 6966 634
fax: +358 9 6966 873
e-mail: klaus.nieminen at ficora.fi
www: http://www.ficora.fi


_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum