Re: Need for working ENUM [was Re: Welcome! ]

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> ...
> So, I fully support the idea of e164.isc.org, as long as we can do it
> as Telcos on behalf of our customers (so, for .uk, that is upto the
> 10k block level!). I should think that SIP is the preferred protocol
> of choice.
> 
> ... and perhaps then we can also link in things like 1700 (IAXTEL.com)
> and a few of the other VoIP number mappings which are around.

i happen to agree about SIP, simply because that's what we use internally.
but, i'd hate to find myself in the middle of a war about it.  is the choice
of SIP noncontroversial?  or do we need two enum-like trees, one for each
protocol?  or does the NAPTR/SRV model naturally support both such that if
you find that the other end only speaks a protocol you don't speak, you can
just treat it as "no ENUM found, goto TDM"?

for isc to embark on this, only two things are needed.  first, it would
take a small to medium set of competing telco's all asking for the same
thing -- this is to ensure that we're not taking sides or attempting to
legislate from the bench or misuse our brand or abuse the public's trust.
second, it would take some money, like $1 per number per year paid three
years in advance for registration, or a straight grant (tax deductible if
you're a US taxpayer) to fund some period of free registration, or some
combination.

even though we may seem independent, we can only do what the community or
some significant subset of it wants us to do.

even though we may seem have a lot of resources, we can't cross-subsidize
anything this big, so it has to somehow pay for most of its own costs.

--
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/>.