[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> > 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
> Hmmm... the trouble with this is "you and how many others". ... Who
> is to say someone else won't have the same opinion? I can't help but
> be drawn to a comparison with the "Alternate Root" crowd.
i can only hope that anyone who does this will be a nonprofit public benefit
corporation with a strong community-minded board of directors. and if there
is another such entity who would like to take this on, then isc has no work
to do and we'll happily become a customer of it, and perhaps a free software
supplier as well if BIND or OpenReg are part of the proposed solution.
the analogy to alternate-root dns isn't lost on me -- in fact i introduced
it here a few hours ago. without intending to restart a dead debate or kick
a dead horse or whatever, i can say that i consider the situations dissimilar
for two reasons: E.164 is a one-way mapping, not a reliable distributed
hierarchical autonomous database; and, alternate roots in E.164 don't break
anything other than the economic model, or require protective measures by
people who don't want to participate in them.
> Perhaps I look at this whole thing backwards and think that I should
> be phoning Paul Vixie, and that's firstname.lastname@example.org in the first place.
no doubt. but my SIP devices include a 15-year-old panasonic phone switch
and the instrument on my desk can call your E.164 a whole lot easier than
it can call "email@example.com" and that's the early deployment reality we
have to work inside of. by all means let's fix it in time for our children
to have dick tracy wristpicturephones with dial-by-name. but, not today?
> 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.
congradulations, you've reinvented TPC.INT.
> 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.
our asterisk server is configured to try to find a SIP destination via
hardcoded config elements or via SRV/NAPTR in the nonexistent e164.arpa
and/or enum.int tail-domains, and failing that, it routes via our TDM
provider (over a digium T1/ESF PCI board.) i'd like to be able to reach
the rest of the SIP-reachable world without using TDM as my fabric. ITU
won't allow that to happen until they're sure they've re-monetized it in
ways beneficial to their members.
reinventing TPC.INT wasn't precisely on my list of things to accomplish,
i just want a richer set of TDM bypass information without waiting for ITU.
To unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.