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

[John Todd <jtodd@loligo.com>]

At 3:15 PM -0400 on 5/17/04, Blaine Christian wrote:
> Just a quick response to Paul (sorry for the manufactured info but I was not
> subscribed to the list until just now).
>
> ----------Attributed to Paul Vixie----------
> 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"?
> ---------End Paul Attribution----------------
>
> E164.org allows a variety of mappings, SIP/IAX to name two.  The idea is
> pretty neat but may have some problems scaling.  You can maintain one ENUM
> tree but you would have incompatible client issues in certain situations
> (IAX to SIP for example).

ENUM supports as many protocols as you'd like in the same record. 
Your end device/system decides which protocol it would like to choose 
for the communication, based on the originating protocol.  You can 
have SIP, H323, IAX, email, TEL, etc.    The decision on how and why 
to use specific methods and in what order to use them lays in the 
hands of the originating gateway or device.

JT

--
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/>.