Re: Welcome!

[Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>]

Paul,

I think this is exactly the right mailing list for that discussion. How does
that approach differ from having private ENUM servers, each with their own
.e164.arpa zone files, that you would add to your DNS servers?

Also, there's talk of the official .1 root delegation happening this year.
Do you think its realistic?

Richard Shockey of Neustar recently told me (concerning ENUM) "there can be
only one" (quoting The Highlander). I don't necessarily believe this. Any
thoughts?

- Dan

On 5/17/04 12:47 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com> wrote:

>> I'd like to welcome everyone to VOIP-Peering, a place where we can have
>> discussion concerning the interconnection of VOIP networks.
>> 
>> Just to start the ball rolling....
>> 
>> - Who on the list is currently doing VOIP interconnection?
>> 
>> - How are you doing it? (i.e. What are the data and signaling planes used?)
>> 
>> - How would you like to do it?
>> 
>> Also, please feel free to send information about this list to other lists
>> and forums, particularly voice-centric ones.
> 
> i've been considering the lack of allocation of e164.arpa and enum.int et al,
> and considering the feature in Asterisk whereby any tail-domain can be added
> when searching for a voip-reachable endpoint starting from a digit string,
> and considering isc's free "openreg" software, and to put it all together,
> i've been considering whether interested parties should form a lite consortia
> to make their own number-blocks known to other interested parties.  this isn't
> "voip peering" in the control/data plane or interconnect sense, but rather
> in the "how can we discover eachother's islands without waiting for the ITU
> to figure out how they're going to protect the old-like dialtone industry?"
> 
> 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
> interest and if nobody more trusted/credible was willing to do it first.  i
> am unhappy at the prospect of paying verisign or any other company $30/year
> per number for SRV or NAPTR RR's when it's so easy to just delegate with NS
> RRs to people who can then maintain the per-number data locally and cheaply.
> (all indications are that ITU will be handing things out at the country code
> level, and we know where that'll lead.)  do we need our own rendezvous system,
> beyond hardcoding stuff into our config files?
> 
> my belief as of this moment is that enterprise-level voip doesn't require
> direct connection or "voip peering" to enable a cellphone-quality bypass of
> the pay-per-minute TDM empire, and that this result ought to be pursued.  am
> i on the right mailing list or is this one limited to interconnect/settlement
> strategies at the physical/billing level?
> 
> (most of you can reach me at 3557*VIX but that approach isn't going to scale,
> and while +1.650.423.1301 leads to the same instrument, very few of you are
> ever going to hardcode that, and ITU is going to make me wait several more
> years before they give "+1" to verisign who is going to charge me $30/year
> for each number out of my 100-wide DID block... "this ain't a good
> situation.")
> 
> --
> 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/>.

-- 
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group



--
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/>.