[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Welcome!
At 01:46 PM 5/17/2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 17 May 2004 16:47 +0000 Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> wrote:
for the record, isc would happily create "e164.isc.org" and add
delegations at the 100- or 1000-block to anyone who faxed us a phone
bill, if there was
why not ask for a tld <g> sorry ... sure .. why not.
Hmmm... the trouble with this is "you and how many others". Whilst E.164
numbers are (in essence) unique, i.e. there is a canonical albeit
distributed "database", what you are trying (for good reason) to do is
generate another database of "who has what E.164 number" (for a subset of
all E.164 numbers), because (in essence) you see the ITU's/USG's
role/action (or rather lack thereof) as problematic. Who is to say someone
else won't have the same opinion?
Me ..since I chair the ENUM WG and have to negotiate with the ITU and USG
and the Canadian Govt on these very issues all the time.
I can't help but be drawn to a comparison
with the "Alternate Root" crowd.
Perhaps I look at this whole thing backwards and think that I should
be phoning Paul Vixie, and that's paul@vix.com in the first place.
Yep .. I dial with SIP URI's all the time and it works fine.
Doing a lookup to E.164 number and then inverting back to an IP address
is wierdness I shouldn't need to do other than for legacy reasons.
Yep .. your mother likes her phone number and is historically reluctant to
change. That is the reason we have NP in the US and why we will
_eventually_ get 1e164.arpa to work here.
Thus
the E.164 numbers I'm likely to call are precisely those which are
least likely to be in Paul's registry (which seems to be end-user
initiated) as those who are in Paul's registry I can likely call using a
domain name and appropriate SRV/NAPTR record anyway.
So it seems to me the important thing is either for the underlying
operator to give an ENUM response (or a default ENUM response) so I
can terminate calls to non-VoIP people, or for there to be some sort
of competition (multiple routes) to the terminating line.
You are not talking about TRIP are you? ..and how do the GW operators get paid?
Well, if I use Paul's model, then for the first two years the only entry
starting +1.650 I'm ever going to see is for a Mr P Vixie Esq. on a rather
more specific address (ok, well may be a few more). If I could, on the
other hand, do some form of lookup for +1.650.xxx.xxxx and found Mr P Vixie
would terminate calls to +1.650.423.13xx for free, and a host of telcos
offered +1.650.xxx.xxxx at various different rates, possibly including
zero, I'd be sending a lot more calls that way.
Naaah ... my opinion is that if they don't have a SIP URI from FWD, IPTEL,
or something else like skype else I probably dont want to talk to them anyway.
Remember something else here folks ..that with NP you really cant do block
routing .. eventually we will have geographic portability in the us and
that will make the TN totally useless.
I'm not sure this is something DNS can effectively do (probably, it's
been (ab)used for enough else). But if it is, I'm sure Paul's going
to be the one to tell us how.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.