Re: DUNDi

[Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>]

--On 23 October 2004 07:08 +0200 Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> 
wrote:

> All the problems you moan about are solved
> e.g in Austria with+43780 www.enum.at

To be clear, I am not moaning about ENUM (either at you, Randy or
anyone else). I am trying to enlighten people who think ENUM is
going to do anything else except lock VoIP into e164 (i.e. ITU driven)
numbering.

I don't actually think the ITU (w.r.t. e.164 numbering) is necessarily
the pointy horned creature with forked tail that some people portray
it as, but suggesting e.164 (with competitive / alternate root etc.)
is going to break the tie to e.164 / ITU numbering is daft. We already
have that - just don't use ENUM.

I also did not say (for the avoidance of doubt) that alternate ENUM
trees were useless. I said they were useful for achieving the goal of
avoiding tying numbering to e.164. I am rushing out the door now
so haven't had the time to reinvestigate www.enum.at, but I don't
see how it achieves what I am talking about.

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/>.