1 / 7

Combined User and Carrier ENUM in e164.arpa draft-haberler-carrier-enum-00.html

Combined User and Carrier ENUM in e164.arpa draft-haberler-carrier-enum-00.html. Michael Haberler mah@eunet.at 5.8.2005. The problem we‘re addressing:. ENUM under e164.arpa currently means ‚User ENUM‘ (by opt-in) only.

micahl
Télécharger la présentation

Combined User and Carrier ENUM in e164.arpa draft-haberler-carrier-enum-00.html

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Combined User andCarrier ENUM ine164.arpadraft-haberler-carrier-enum-00.html Michael Haberler mah@eunet.at 5.8.2005

  2. The problem we‘re addressing: • ENUM under e164.arpa currently means ‚User ENUM‘ (by opt-in) only. • A carrier-of-record has no standard place to deposit, for instance, Point of Interconnect (POI) information. • VoIP peering BoF documented interest • IP interconnect info through „zone cohabitation“ doesnt fly • Interconnect resolution currently pressed towards private trees • Consequences: • Low per-tree resolution rates • As announced by, and limited to „tree club members“ • Alternative is multi-tree resolution – does not scale well, aliasing problems • No predefined scheme for global interoperability (!) • Private tree solutions tend to lack WRT to standards – reducing operator choice long-term • Registry cost: • Repeated OPEX per registry (assuming different operators) • No synergy between Carrier and User ENUM operation • this might imply failure of User ENUM – especially in small countries • less pressure on regulators to get some form of ENUM going at all – slower footprint for User ENUM

  3. Requirements for a solution • single DNS lookup • no shape change for User ENUM • additional functionality/code only for carrier resolvers. • work with closed and open number plans – avoid wildcards / enable DNSSEC • no new NAPTRs just for resolution • deployment in finite time • local decisions as far as possible • no revisiting of global agreements like the interim procedures • Address privacy concerns – disclosure of unlisted numbers, user identity

  4. proposal • add a Carrier ENUM subtree (branch) under e164.arpa • Branch location is a per-CC decision • Provide mechanism to locate country CE subtree • Carriers may populate that subtree • What a „carrier“ is is a national matter • This suggest a branch under <cc>.e164.arpa • But also enable different scenarios like: • <cc>.carrier.e164.arpa or • Carrier.<NPA>.<cc>.e164.arpa • Regarding resolution and management, Carrier and User ENUM tree should be „ships in the night“

  5. sdl = 0 arpa carrier carrier carrier e164 1 1 4 4 sdl = 1 9 4 9 sdl = 4 7 9 7 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 … … … … Branching options: where? .

  6. Example implementation • Code at  http://mah.priv.at/enum/dist/ • Zone files included & also in DNS • Complexitiy: • Determine subdomain location • Fetch sdl RR from country code zone • Conditionally insert „carrier“ label in domain as per sdl

  7. Proposed route • Adopt CE as WG item • Discuss and suggest a CE mechanism • Work in sdl RR • Defer policy issues to VoIP peering • Adapt 3761 to cater for CE mechanism

More Related