Discussion:
enum
(too old to reply)
JONES JAMES F
2008-12-22 23:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Is anyone doing anything with 4.6.e164.arpa domain?







James Jones
Joe Abley
2008-12-22 23:53:25 UTC
Permalink
On 2008-12-22, at 18:44, JONES JAMES F wrote:

> Is anyone doing anything with 4.6.e164.arpa domain?

[cuticle:~]% dig 4.6.e164.arpa soa

; <<>> DiG 9.4.2-P2 <<>> 4.6.e164.arpa soa
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 3833
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;4.6.e164.arpa. IN SOA

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
e164.arpa. 0 IN SOA ns-pri.ripe.net. e164-contacts.ripe.net.
2008122301 14400 3600 2419200 14400

;; Query time: 381 msec
;; SERVER: 199.212.90.6#53(199.212.90.6)
;; WHEN: Mon Dec 22 18:52:52 2008
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 96

[cuticle:~]%

I would guess no.


Joe
David Farrar
2008-12-23 04:34:43 UTC
Permalink
There's been some discussions and trials in the past between InternetNZ and
the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are no current plans to
delegate the domain.

It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if instructed
to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied with whomever is
proposed to operate it.

DPF

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Abley [mailto:***@hopcount.ca]
Sent: 23 December 2008 12:53 p.m.
To: JONES JAMES F
Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] enum


On 2008-12-22, at 18:44, JONES JAMES F wrote:

> Is anyone doing anything with 4.6.e164.arpa domain?

[cuticle:~]% dig 4.6.e164.arpa soa

; <<>> DiG 9.4.2-P2 <<>> 4.6.e164.arpa soa
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 3833
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;4.6.e164.arpa. IN SOA

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
e164.arpa. 0 IN SOA ns-pri.ripe.net.
e164-contacts.ripe.net.
2008122301 14400 3600 2419200 14400

;; Query time: 381 msec
;; SERVER: 199.212.90.6#53(199.212.90.6)
;; WHEN: Mon Dec 22 18:52:52 2008
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 96

[cuticle:~]%

I would guess no.


Joe
Nathan Ward
2008-12-22 23:56:07 UTC
Permalink
On 23/12/2008, at 12:44 PM, JONES JAMES F wrote:
> Is anyone doing anything with 4.6.e164.arpa domain?
>
http://www.internetnz.net.nz/projects/enum/index.html

Seems to me that it could tie in to TUANZ/INZ stuff.

I'd question whether it's worthwhile going through all the
bureaucratic nightmare to get a limited lifetime bridge between the
PSTN and the Internet.
Why not just use SIP URIs?

--
Nathan Ward
lenz
2008-12-23 00:14:36 UTC
Permalink
from what i've seen in europe the registries love it and the users don't
really take it. the main problem i've seen there is that the validation
process is way too complicated for the normal domain registrar and the
customer. the registration numbers in germany and austria are not too
impressive either. the swiss guys killed their enum project afaik.
cheers
lenz

>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Nathan Ward <***@daork.net> wrote:
>
>> On 23/12/2008, at 12:44 PM, JONES JAMES F wrote:
>> > Is anyone doing anything with 4.6.e164.arpa domain?
>> >
>> http://www.internetnz.net.nz/projects/enum/index.html
>>
>> Seems to me that it could tie in to TUANZ/INZ stuff.
>>
>> I'd question whether it's worthwhile going through all the
>> bureaucratic nightmare to get a limited lifetime bridge between the
>> PSTN and the Internet.
>> Why not just use SIP URIs?
>>
>> --
>> Nathan Ward
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZNOG mailing list
>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>
>
>
Leo Vegoda
2008-12-23 14:16:13 UTC
Permalink
On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> There's been some discussions and trials in the past between InternetNZ and
> the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are no current plans to
> delegate the domain.
>
> It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if instructed
> to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied with whomever is
> proposed to operate it.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough:

http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011.html

Leo
Joe Abley
2008-12-23 14:18:58 UTC
Permalink
On 2008-12-23, at 09:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> There's been some discussions and trials in the past between
>> InternetNZ and
>> the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are no current
>> plans to
>> delegate the domain.
>>
>> It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if
>> instructed
>> to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied with whomever is
>> proposed to operate it.
>
> I suppose we'll find out soon enough:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011.html

Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:

nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz


Joe
Barry Murphy
2008-12-23 20:25:32 UTC
Permalink
> Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:
>
> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz

I had the exact feeling when I saw the request, for a service that relies
so heavily on DNS, you'd expect at least 2 DNS's and at least geographic
redundancy.

Barry
James Jones
2008-12-23 20:30:35 UTC
Permalink
oops..sent correction

On 2008-12-23, at 09:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> There's been some discussions and trials in the past between
>> InternetNZ and the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are no
>> current plans to delegate the domain.
>>
>> It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if
>> instructed to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied with
>> whomever is proposed to operate it.
>
> I suppose we'll find out soon enough:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011
> .html

Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:

nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz


Joe
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
***@list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog


--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Barry Murphy
2008-12-23 21:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Could it be your secondary DNS is your DSL circuit?

***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
Server: 60.234.1.1
Address: 60.234.1.1#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
Address: 219.89.206.239


***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup 219.89.206.239
Server: 60.234.1.1
Address: 60.234.1.1#53

Non-authoritative answer:
239.206.89.219.in-addr.arpa name = 219-89-206-239.adsl.xtra.co.nz.

Barry



On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:30:35 +1300, "James Jones" <***@freedomnet.co.nz>
wrote:
> oops..sent correction
>
> On 2008-12-23, at 09:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>
>> On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> There's been some discussions and trials in the past between
>>> InternetNZ and the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are no
>>> current plans to delegate the domain.
>>>
>>> It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if
>>> instructed to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied with
>>> whomever is proposed to operate it.
>>
>> I suppose we'll find out soon enough:
>>
>> http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011
>> .html
>
> Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:
>
> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
>
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
>
>
James Jones
2008-12-23 21:37:28 UTC
Permalink
for now yes

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Barry Murphy <***@unix.co.nz> wrote:
> Could it be your secondary DNS is your DSL circuit?
>
> ***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
> Server: 60.234.1.1
> Address: 60.234.1.1#53
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name: enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
> Address: 219.89.206.239
>
>
> ***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup 219.89.206.239
> Server: 60.234.1.1
> Address: 60.234.1.1#53
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> 239.206.89.219.in-addr.arpa name = 219-89-206-239.adsl.xtra.co.nz.
>
> Barry
>
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:30:35 +1300, "James Jones" <***@freedomnet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>> oops..sent correction
>>
>> On 2008-12-23, at 09:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's been some discussions and trials in the past between
>>>> InternetNZ and the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are no
>>>> current plans to delegate the domain.
>>>>
>>>> It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if
>>>> instructed to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied with
>>>> whomever is proposed to operate it.
>>>
>>> I suppose we'll find out soon enough:
>>>
>>> http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011
>>> .html
>>
>> Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:
>>
>> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
>> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
>>
>>
>> Joe
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZNOG mailing list
>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>
>>
>>
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Craig Spiers
2008-12-23 21:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Who are freedomnet ?

Most things on the website are under construction?

Do they manage enum listings?

Kind Regards,

Craig Spiers - Network Manager
Solarix Limited
DDI: +64 9 974 4753 | FAX: +64 9 523 8057 FAULTS: 0800 89 41 42
MOB: +64 21 857 183 | email: ***@staff.solarix.co.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential
and
intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient
you
are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make

use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this
email and contact the sender immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Jones [mailto:***@freedomnet.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 10:37 a.m.
To: Barry Murphy
Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] enum

for now yes

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Barry Murphy <***@unix.co.nz> wrote:
> Could it be your secondary DNS is your DSL circuit?
>
> ***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
> Server: 60.234.1.1
> Address: 60.234.1.1#53
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name: enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
> Address: 219.89.206.239
>
>
> ***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup 219.89.206.239
> Server: 60.234.1.1
> Address: 60.234.1.1#53
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> 239.206.89.219.in-addr.arpa name = 219-89-206-239.adsl.xtra.co.nz.
>
> Barry
>
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:30:35 +1300, "James Jones"
<***@freedomnet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>> oops..sent correction
>>
>> On 2008-12-23, at 09:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's been some discussions and trials in the past between
>>>> InternetNZ and the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are
no
>>>> current plans to delegate the domain.
>>>>
>>>> It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if
>>>> instructed to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied
with
>>>> whomever is proposed to operate it.
>>>
>>> I suppose we'll find out soon enough:
>>>
>>>
http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011
>>> .html
>>
>> Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:
>>
>> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
>> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
>>
>>
>> Joe
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZNOG mailing list
>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>
>>
>>
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
James Jones
2008-12-23 22:03:53 UTC
Permalink
We would like to be. We are new broadband and VoIP. With focus on VoIP ATM.

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Craig Spiers
<***@staff.solarix.co.nz> wrote:
> Who are freedomnet ?
>
> Most things on the website are under construction?
>
> Do they manage enum listings?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Craig Spiers - Network Manager
> Solarix Limited
> DDI: +64 9 974 4753 | FAX: +64 9 523 8057 FAULTS: 0800 89 41 42
> MOB: +64 21 857 183 | email: ***@staff.solarix.co.nz
> The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential
> and
> intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient
> you
> are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make
>
> use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this
> email and contact the sender immediately.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Jones [mailto:***@freedomnet.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 10:37 a.m.
> To: Barry Murphy
> Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: [nznog] enum
>
> for now yes
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Barry Murphy <***@unix.co.nz> wrote:
>> Could it be your secondary DNS is your DSL circuit?
>>
>> ***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
>> Server: 60.234.1.1
>> Address: 60.234.1.1#53
>>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> Name: enum2.freedomnet.co.nz
>> Address: 219.89.206.239
>>
>>
>> ***@corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup 219.89.206.239
>> Server: 60.234.1.1
>> Address: 60.234.1.1#53
>>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> 239.206.89.219.in-addr.arpa name = 219-89-206-239.adsl.xtra.co.nz.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:30:35 +1300, "James Jones"
> <***@freedomnet.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>> oops..sent correction
>>>
>>> On 2008-12-23, at 09:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There's been some discussions and trials in the past between
>>>>> InternetNZ and the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are
> no
>>>>> current plans to delegate the domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if
>>>>> instructed to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied
> with
>>>>> whomever is proposed to operate it.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose we'll find out soon enough:
>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011
>>>> .html
>>>
>>> Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:
>>>
>>> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
>>> nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NZNOG mailing list
>>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Jones
> Managing Director
> Freedom Networks
> +64 6 3678300
> +1 413 771 1402
> ***@freedomnet.co.nz
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Nathan Ward
2008-12-23 23:13:38 UTC
Permalink
On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:

> for now yes


In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual
hosting servers in the states, at a single provider.

I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the
domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be
authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them,
up and down the country on many different networks.

--
Nathan Ward
Craig Whitmore
2008-12-23 23:24:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 12:13 +1300, Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:
>
> > for now yes
>
>
> In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual
> hosting servers in the states, at a single provider.
>
> I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the
> domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be
> authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them,
> up and down the country on many different networks.

Yes if anyone is going to use them then you want them to be reliable and
the fastest for the people who are going to use them the most (NZ
people).

Hosting them in the states and on a DSL connection is not going to be
the best place at all.

Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the
4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you
working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a
closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can
point towards you as you asked?

Thanks
James Jones
2008-12-23 23:32:53 UTC
Permalink
If we get the allocation I will be adding several servers in
wellington and auckland. Then from that I would like to be setup up
some VoIP exchange points most likely starting in APE and WIX. Freedom
Networks is a new company. We are going to be lauching a new VoIP at
the end of Jan. If some of you remember I spoke at NZNOG07 on Open
Source VoIP in Carrier Enviorments. If still want to know more about
me check out http://www.linkedin.com/in/jjones341

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Nathan Ward <***@daork.net> wrote:
> On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:
>
>> for now yes
>
>
> In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual
> hosting servers in the states, at a single provider.
>
> I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the
> domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be
> authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them,
> up and down the country on many different networks.
>
> --
> Nathan Ward
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Mark Foster
2008-12-23 23:33:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, December 24, 2008 12:13 pm, Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:
>
>> for now yes
>
>
> In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual
> hosting servers in the states, at a single provider.
>
> I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the
> domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be
> authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them,
> up and down the country on many different networks.
>

Before NZNOG'rs start ripping James to bits, perhaps he and others need to
review http://www.internetnz.net.nz/projects/enum/index.html/ and then ask
the question... why isn't the zone already delegated somewhere? And if
it's to be delegated, shouldn't it be to someone involved in the project?

Pointing the finger at the holes in James's setup/application is somewhat
redundant, if James is unlikely to be approved as DNS host by
MED/thepowersthatbe on the grounds of a longer-standing ENUM Taskforce for
the NZ range, for starters...
James Jones
2008-12-23 23:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Just to continue what Mark said, I am not really expecting for this to
get approved. I am hoping it will. If anything maybe it will bring
more discussion around enum and using VoIP in New Zealand.

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Mark Foster <***@blakjak.net> wrote:
> On Wed, December 24, 2008 12:13 pm, Nathan Ward wrote:
>> On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:
>>
>>> for now yes
>>
>>
>> In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual
>> hosting servers in the states, at a single provider.
>>
>> I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the
>> domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be
>> authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them,
>> up and down the country on many different networks.
>>
>
> Before NZNOG'rs start ripping James to bits, perhaps he and others need to
> review http://www.internetnz.net.nz/projects/enum/index.html/ and then ask
> the question... why isn't the zone already delegated somewhere? And if
> it's to be delegated, shouldn't it be to someone involved in the project?
>
> Pointing the finger at the holes in James's setup/application is somewhat
> redundant, if James is unlikely to be approved as DNS host by
> MED/thepowersthatbe on the grounds of a longer-standing ENUM Taskforce for
> the NZ range, for starters...
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Steve Phillips
2008-12-28 21:38:38 UTC
Permalink
James Jones wrote:
> Just to continue what Mark said, I am not really expecting for this to
> get approved. I am hoping it will. If anything maybe it will bring
> more discussion around enum and using VoIP in New Zealand.

I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions

[quote]
Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the
4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you
working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a
closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can
point towards you as you asked?
[/quote]

By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a
private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect
quiet you'll stop people from complaining about it.

nice.

(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)

--
Steve.
Peter Mott
2008-12-28 21:49:06 UTC
Permalink
On 29/12/2008, at 10:38 AM, Steve Phillips wrote:

> By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to
> be a private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this
> aspect quiet you'll stop people from complaining about it.

Premature conclusion not supported by facts available.

>
> (personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/
> the DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)

There was a time when that was a very scary suggestion. InternetNZ
hasn't always acted in the best interests of Industry, and there are
plenty of commercial entities providing service for the public good
of others, sometimes even without reward.

regards

Peter Mott
Swizzle | Wholesale Hosted Servers
+64 21 279 4995
-/-
David Farrar
2008-12-29 06:33:12 UTC
Permalink
From: Steve Phillips [mailto:***@focb.co.nz]
>(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
>DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)

I would not get overly concerned. While I can't speak for MED, my
recollection of their policy is that any application for the delegation will
be referred by MED to either the TCF or NAD (basically the Telcos) for
comment, and it is highly unlikely any delegation will be agreed to unless
they agree. If they did agree, then a recommendation would probably go to
the Minister, and if he approves would the ITU be told to approve the
delegation.

So it is not just a matter of first in first served.
Joe Abley
2008-12-29 18:56:37 UTC
Permalink
On 29 Dec 2008, at 01:33, David Farrar wrote:

> From: Steve Phillips [mailto:***@focb.co.nz]
>> (personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
>> DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)
>
> I would not get overly concerned.

To put the problem space into context, how much of the +64 number
range can be reached using SIP, or any other URI that you might want
to publish under 4.6.e164.arpa?

I ask because it seems to me that the only plausible way that enum
will be used is as part of a bottom-up process, through individual
subscribers who want to make themselves reachable in ways other than
through their telco.

However, so long as telcos maintain effective control over the E.164
number plan and have no commercial reason to modify their existing
interconnect tariffs (or to allow their subscribers to be called in
ways that don't use their network) it seems clear that such a thing
will never happen.

Am I missing something, or is enum a nice technical solution which
can, almost by definition, never be deployed?


Joe
Jasper Bryant-Greene
2008-12-29 19:49:41 UTC
Permalink
On 30/12/2008, at 7:56 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Am I missing something, or is enum a nice technical solution which
> can, almost by definition, never be deployed?


enum itself can easily be deployed: there's no reason an alternative
enum registry couldn't be built under e164.*.nz without needing any
permission from anyone.

The only drawback is that software wouldn't be preconfigured to look
there, but how much software already looks at 4.6.e164.arpa anyway? I
don't work with VoIP every day, so maybe e164 has been widely deployed
while I wasn't looking, but I'd be surprised...

Maybe, if an alternative registry was set up and proved to be
reasonably popular, MED could be convinced to hand over 4.6.e164.arpa,
and e164.*.nz could just become an alias. That's probably a pretty big
maybe, but the alternative registry would still be useful if that
didn't happen.

--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash

ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
Andrew Ruthven
2008-12-29 20:32:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 08:49 +1300, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
> On 30/12/2008, at 7:56 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Am I missing something, or is enum a nice technical solution which
> > can, almost by definition, never be deployed?

> enum itself can easily be deployed: there's no reason an alternative
> enum registry couldn't be built under e164.*.nz without needing any
> permission from anyone.

You're correct, it can be easily deployed - I had a test bed e.164 zone
while I was doing some work on ENUM a few years ago. There is also a
shared secondary domain that anyone can register phone numbers in:

http://www.e164.org/

I haven't registered any zones in e164.org yet - my crappy ADSL router
locks up whenever I do ENUM lookups over it (but DNSSEC works, go
figure). A replacement is on the cards.

> The only drawback is that software wouldn't be preconfigured to look
> there, but how much software already looks at 4.6.e164.arpa anyway? I
> don't work with VoIP every day, so maybe e164 has been widely deployed
> while I wasn't looking, but I'd be surprised...

Most software that I've played with can be told which zone (or multiple
zones) to look in. If you're used ENUM for internal call routing for a
PBX then you'll have an internal zone as well as e164.arpa (or
e164.org).

Cheers!

--
Andrew Ruthven
Wellington, New Zealand
At home: ***@etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally
| left blank.
Joe Abley
2008-12-30 15:19:27 UTC
Permalink
On 2008-12-29, at 13:56, Joe Abley wrote:

> However, so long as telcos maintain effective control over the E.164
> number plan and have no commercial reason to modify their existing
> interconnect tariffs (or to allow their subscribers to be called in
> ways that don't use their network) it seems clear that such a thing
> will never happen.

On 2008-12-29, at 19:01, Mark Harris wrote:

> We (and I mainly mean Michael but also Keith and Jordan and others)
> worked hard to persuade the telcos that it was a Good Thing(tm) but
> the
> TCF is where the process got bogged down. They kept saying 'yes, we
> must
> do a test' but never when or how.

I suppose I could interpret your description of the TCF's reaction to
the idea as simple telephantitude, but it also doesn't seem especially
outrageous to read both paragraphs above as saying the same thing.

I was not involved, but I hear that in North America there was a
tremendous amount of layer-9 activity surrounding the creation of a
testbed registry for 1.e164.arpa -- presumably far more than would
ever be required for 4.6.e164.arpa, given that +1 includes several
countries. The testbed registry was created, at CIRA in Ottawa. As far
as I know, it remains empty, some years later.
Blair Harrison
2008-12-30 19:16:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Joe Abley <***@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps the importance of phone numbers is dwindling, and enum, no
> matter how enthusiastically promoted, will be dragged down with them.

Hear Hear.

Why anyone gets so attached to 'their' phone number (which is not
really theirs, but rather their telco's) is beyond me. Maybe it's
years of telco propaganda, or just that they're afraid nobody will be
able to contact them if they change it - which is clearly nonsense,
you just ring a few other people who know the person you're trying to
ring, and ask if they have a new number for them, or read their
facebook page, or send them an email, etc. These days it seems
everyone has more than one telephone number, so surely they can be
reached at one of many, which diminishes the importance of any single
number.

I really like the innovation of .tel - http://www.telnic.org/faq.html
- seems a great idea to me.

It certainly does seem that skype has captured the vast majority of
voip end users, so I don't think there's much point trying to
recapture them with something else. They just won't understand if it's
harder than a couple of clicks.


> Joe

Blair
Scott Howard
2008-12-30 19:52:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Joe Abley <***@hopcount.ca> wrote:

> It does seem possible, however, that in this case the ship has sailed
> on enum. I've never seen a device marketed to users directly which
> uses enum, for example, but I do see them today using skype.
>

IMHO, enum should never become an end-user thing. Whilst that's not to say
that end-user devices may not support it in the future, it make far more
sense when used as a provider (VOIP or otherwise) backend in order to route
calls over the best communications channel.


On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Blair Harrison <***@jedi.school.nz>wrote:

> I really like the innovation of .tel - http://www.telnic.org/faq.html
> - seems a great idea to me.


.tel is just yet another first-in-best-dressed top-level domain. Sure, if I
manage to score scotthoward.tel then it's going to make me easy to find, but
what about the thousands of other Scott Howards out there?


> It certainly does seem that skype has captured the vast majority of
> voip end users, so I don't think there's much point trying to
> recapture them with something else. They just won't understand if it's
> harder than a couple of clicks.


So it needs to be made simple. Skype is NOT the answer to VOIP in any form
as far as I'm concerned. It uses a proprietary protocol, and then routes
your traffic via the systems of other Skype users (and of course thus also
routes other peoples traffic via your system). Whilst this makes sense for
P2P file transfer, it doesn't make any sense for comms.

VOIP/SIP is taking off in many different ways in many countries - and the
real win comes when it _is_ transparent to the end user. Vonage in the US
and and Engine/MyNetFone in Australia are examples of companies that are
doing this, and in fact Vonage don't even mention the word "VOIP" on their
TV ads - it's just "Phone Calls over your Broadband connection". Add in all
the companies that are starting to deply the VOIP capabilities that already
exist in their phone systems, plus all of the telco's who are using VOIP
behind the scenes (eg, Gizmo5 allows you to reach around 11% of all US phone
numbers for free via VOIP) and you're starting to get a lot of worldwide SIP
users!

Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal routing
between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or something else...

Scott.
Richard Naylor
2008-12-30 21:35:26 UTC
Permalink
At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:

>Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal
>routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or
>something else...

OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering
sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have
passed. Progress starts today.

Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN
equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation.

Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be
involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise
that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a
no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there......

Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end
users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are
sleep, food and beer)

Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you
peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?)

So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we
shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians.

Richard
James Jones
2008-12-30 22:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Amen!!!

To bad there is nothing like BGP for SIP.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Naylor [mailto:***@r2.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2008 10:35 a.m.
To: Scott Howard; Blair Harrison
Cc: nznog
Subject: [nznog] VoIP Peering - was Re: enum

At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:

>Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal
>routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or
>something else...

OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering
sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have
passed. Progress starts today.

Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN
equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation.

Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be
involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise
that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a
no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there......

Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end
users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are
sleep, food and beer)

Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you
peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?)

So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we
shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians.

Richard
Andrew Ruthven
2008-12-31 00:56:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:01 +1300, James Jones wrote:
> Amen!!!
>
> To bad there is nothing like BGP for SIP.

There is. With Asterisk there is DUNDi[0] (peer-to-peer phone call
routing), and also I believe that one of the BGP RFCs mentions you could
distribute phone number routing over BGP although this probably hasn't
been implemented.

Also there is carrier ENUM if we want to continue beating that
horse. ;) Setting up an ENUM zone is trivial, if we're walking about
a .nz only thing for interested parties then that would be a goer. I
see that e164.{org|net}.nz are registered to InternetNZ, so might be
accessible. I'm happy to start creating some zonefiles to delegate
number space (err, how to best validate that you should have control of
that number space?).

To answer Richard's question of how to do this, a number of VoIP
providers in .nz have to agree that they're interested in getting this
going. Then we can get momentum rolling.

Just reading through the list of assumptions, both DUNDi and ENUM appear
to satisfy all the assumptions, but I'm not sure if DUNDi is available
for systems other than Asterisk.

Cheers!

[0] Hmmm, www.dundi.com now goes to Digium, how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Universal_Number_Discovery

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Naylor [mailto:***@r2.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2008 10:35 a.m.
> To: Scott Howard; Blair Harrison
> Cc: nznog
> Subject: [nznog] VoIP Peering - was Re: enum
>
> At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:
>
> >Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal
> >routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or
> >something else...
>
> OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering
> sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have
> passed. Progress starts today.
>
> Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN
> equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation.
>
> Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be
> involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise
> that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a
> no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there......
>
> Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end
> users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are
> sleep, food and beer)
>
> Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you
> peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?)
>
> So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we
> shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians.
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
--
Andrew Ruthven
Wellington, New Zealand
At home: ***@etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally
| left blank.
McDonald Richards
2008-12-30 23:44:26 UTC
Permalink
This is a nice wish list, but without legislation that requires it's use and
with the percentage traffic that goes between two VOIP providers being so
miniscule (anyone have those numbers?) this is a LOT of work for very little
return. Most providers who switch calls in the 20 CPS+ range are also
unwilling to add any additional overhead to their call processing and don't
fool yourself into think that VOIP peering is settlement free. You will save
a little - but at what price labour-wise?

You could achieve what you're after with a private ENUM tree that providers
publish their subscriber numbers to, but this also means providers need to
work ENUM into switch deployments that probably have existing IN
functionality. They'd probably prefer a flat-file transfer which they then
process internally and add to their IN platforms database for route lookups
- much like how number portability systems work in Australia. How do you
handle disputes that arise when two providers claim "ownership" of a single
subscriber number?

On the service assurance front - who do you yell at when it breaks? What are
the consequences of it failing to work properly?



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Naylor [mailto:***@r2.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2008 8:35 AM
To: Scott Howard; Blair Harrison
Cc: nznog
Subject: [nznog] VoIP Peering - was Re: enum

At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:

>Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal
>routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or
>something else...

OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering
sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have
passed. Progress starts today.

Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN
equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation.

Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be
involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise
that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a
no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there......

Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end
users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are
sleep, food and beer)

Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you
peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?)

So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we
shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians.

Richard
lenz
2008-12-30 21:35:14 UTC
Permalink
enum is a method of matching PSTN numbers to the DNS space. you have to
register those domains, verify those domains in regular intervals, pay those
domains ... people in those countries that have working enum registries do
not bother going through that hassle for no obvious benefit. the
registration numbers are not significant. VOIP works perfectly without enum
and i see no obvious benefit in pushing numbers in DNS when we invented DNS
to make those numbers memorable ... probably i miss something though
lenz

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Scott Howard <***@doc.net.au> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Joe Abley <***@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
>> It does seem possible, however, that in this case the ship has sailed
>> on enum. I've never seen a device marketed to users directly which
>> uses enum, for example, but I do see them today using skype.
>>
>
> IMHO, enum should never become an end-user thing. Whilst that's not to say
> that end-user devices may not support it in the future, it make far more
> sense when used as a provider (VOIP or otherwise) backend in order to route
> calls over the best communications channel.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Blair Harrison <***@jedi.school.nz>wrote:
>
>> I really like the innovation of .tel - http://www.telnic.org/faq.html
>> - seems a great idea to me.
>
>
> .tel is just yet another first-in-best-dressed top-level domain. Sure, if
> I manage to score scotthoward.tel then it's going to make me easy to find,
> but what about the thousands of other Scott Howards out there?
>
>
>> It certainly does seem that skype has captured the vast majority of
>> voip end users, so I don't think there's much point trying to
>> recapture them with something else. They just won't understand if it's
>> harder than a couple of clicks.
>
>
> So it needs to be made simple. Skype is NOT the answer to VOIP in any form
> as far as I'm concerned. It uses a proprietary protocol, and then routes
> your traffic via the systems of other Skype users (and of course thus also
> routes other peoples traffic via your system). Whilst this makes sense for
> P2P file transfer, it doesn't make any sense for comms.
>
> VOIP/SIP is taking off in many different ways in many countries - and the
> real win comes when it _is_ transparent to the end user. Vonage in the US
> and and Engine/MyNetFone in Australia are examples of companies that are
> doing this, and in fact Vonage don't even mention the word "VOIP" on their
> TV ads - it's just "Phone Calls over your Broadband connection". Add in all
> the companies that are starting to deply the VOIP capabilities that already
> exist in their phone systems, plus all of the telco's who are using VOIP
> behind the scenes (eg, Gizmo5 allows you to reach around 11% of all US phone
> numbers for free via VOIP) and you're starting to get a lot of worldwide SIP
> users!
>
> Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal routing
> between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or something else...
>
> Scott.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
>
Scott Howard
2008-12-30 22:31:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:35 PM, lenz <***@googlemail.com> wrote:

> enum is a method of matching PSTN numbers to the DNS space.


That's like saying that DNS is in turn just a method for turning hostnames
into IP addresses. Sure, that's what it does, but in practice it does a lot
more than that - it plays a large part in allowing you to "find" a website.

Similarly ENUM allows you to "find" how to connect to a "PSTN" number (which
of course might or might not actually be connected to PSTN).

If I tell you that my phone number is +1 408 500 0600, then without ENUM (or
some other similar service) what option are you going to have to call me
from your VOIP service? You're going to have to pay for an international
call to that number, over the PSTN network and very probably via at least a
3-4 carriers. However if my VOIP provider (not necessarily me personally)
had an ENUM record for that number then you could lookup the corresponding
SIP address, and instead make a point-to-point connection.

Clearly the end result is the same - my phone rings - but without ENUM or
something similar there is no optimization of the path taken, and the call
is almost certainly going to leave the TCP network and go through at least 2
SIP-SS7 translations - and with a much higher cost both to you and to me!

I'm not saying ENUM is the right answer, but there's defintiely a problem
out there that a technology is required to solve - and ENUM is the best
option available at the moment.

Scott.
Jasper Bryant-Greene
2008-12-30 22:44:55 UTC
Permalink
On 31/12/2008, at 11:31 AM, Scott Howard wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:35 PM, lenz <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> enum is a method of matching PSTN numbers to the DNS space.
>
> That's like saying that DNS is in turn just a method for turning
> hostnames into IP addresses. Sure, that's what it does, but in
> practice it does a lot more than that - it plays a large part in
> allowing you to "find" a website.
>
> Similarly ENUM allows you to "find" how to connect to a "PSTN"
> number (which of course might or might not actually be connected to
> PSTN).
>
> If I tell you that my phone number is +1 408 500 0600, then without
> ENUM (or some other similar service) what option are you going to
> have to call me from your VOIP service? You're going to have to pay
> for an international call to that number, over the PSTN network and
> very probably via at least a 3-4 carriers. However if my VOIP
> provider (not necessarily me personally) had an ENUM record for that
> number then you could lookup the corresponding SIP address, and
> instead make a point-to-point connection.

How about I just tell you my "phone number" is ***@beer.com, your
software looks up "_sip._udp.beer.com. IN SRV", and places a call to
freddie at the server returned by that record. It's an optimised,
point-to-point connection, and it doesn't involve carrying over
antiquities like PSTN phone numbers.

We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why
we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an
antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while
continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others -
escapes me.

--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash

ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
Jed Laundry
2008-12-30 23:16:43 UTC
Permalink
The issue I see with using email addresses;

1. Many people still use their ISP-provided email address. Which would
be fine if people used the VoIP service provided by their ISPs.

2. Those that don't use [1] use free email services, like Gmail. While
I could foresee Google offering a translation service that was
reliable and decent, what about all the tinfoil hat wearing people who
claim Google is taking over the universe and spying on their call
logs, and so refusing to use it? Also, what happens when Yahoo!Xtra
has to implement a filter for it?

3. Those that don't use [1,2] use their corporate/university email
addresses. I don't know about you, but the IT dept of the megacorp I
work for are very hesitant on implementing anything public-facing.

4. Those on custom domains could implement this, yes. I'd be first in
line. But as it wouldn't be as widespread as options [1-3], and so
imagine the confusion when I told someone "Hey, give me a call on ***@jlaundryhatesspam.com
".

While a good idea in theory, it is much more dependant on providers,
who may or may not have or want anything to do with VoIP.

Jed.



On 31/12/2008, at 11:44 , Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote

[...]

> How about I just tell you my "phone number" is ***@beer.com, your
> software looks up "_sip._udp.beer.com. IN SRV", and places a call to
> freddie at the server returned by that record. It's an optimised,
> point-to-point connection, and it doesn't involve carrying over
> antiquities like PSTN phone numbers.
>
> We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why
> we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an
> antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while
> continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others -
> escapes me.
>
> --
> Jasper Bryant-Greene
> Network Engineer, Unleash
>
> ddi: +64 3 978 1222
> mob: +64 21 129 9458
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Andrew Ruthven
2008-12-31 20:18:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:44 +1300, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
> How about I just tell you my "phone number" is ***@beer.com, your
> software looks up "_sip._udp.beer.com. IN SRV", and places a call to
> freddie at the server returned by that record. It's an optimised,
> point-to-point connection, and it doesn't involve carrying over
> antiquities like PSTN phone numbers.

Because that is a solution to a different problem. That says for a
domain, you can use SIP to contact some SIP endpoint (what happens for a
business? reception only?), whereas in ENUM you can have a number of
different technologies associated with a "phone number". For example,
SIP, H.323, email, IM, http, carrier pigeon roost, PSTN, etc.

The software you're using to contact me can then work out the best
common protocol to use for talking with me. This can include least call
routing in the decision process as well, as already mentioned.

The other useful (and also confusing) thing with ENUM is you can have
regular expressions. So I could have one record for the entire number
range at work which says how to translate that into the required SIP URL
to contact each phone.

> We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why
> we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an
> antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while
> continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others -
> escapes me.

I'm still amazed at the number of (mostly small) businesses that I deal
with that have ISP domain names in their email addresses. Which seems
antiquated to me!

--
Andrew Ruthven
Wellington, New Zealand
At home: ***@etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally
| left blank.
Jasper Bryant-Greene
2008-12-31 20:37:23 UTC
Permalink
On 1/01/2009, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:44 +1300, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
>> How about I just tell you my "phone number" is ***@beer.com, your
>> software looks up "_sip._udp.beer.com. IN SRV", and places a call to
>> freddie at the server returned by that record. It's an optimised,
>> point-to-point connection, and it doesn't involve carrying over
>> antiquities like PSTN phone numbers.
>
> Because that is a solution to a different problem. That says for a
> domain, you can use SIP to contact some SIP endpoint (what happens
> for a
> business? reception only?), whereas in ENUM you can have a number of
> different technologies associated with a "phone number". For example,
> SIP, H.323, email, IM, http, carrier pigeon roost, PSTN, etc.
>
> The software you're using to contact me can then work out the best
> common protocol to use for talking with me. This can include least
> call
> routing in the decision process as well, as already mentioned.
>
> The other useful (and also confusing) thing with ENUM is you can have
> regular expressions. So I could have one record for the entire number
> range at work which says how to translate that into the required SIP
> URL
> to contact each phone.

The technology sounds cool, but do we really want to carry over the
phone numbers? Are they really that ingrained in the consciousness of
everyone that we can't come up with something better?

I'm guessing ENUM records could be inserted for anything, not
necessarily reverse-mapped phone numbers under .e164.arpa, so the
technology is useful even if we ditch the cryptic strings of digits.
Or is it somehow tied to the concept of a phone number?

--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash

ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
Scott Howard
2008-12-31 21:33:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Jasper Bryant-Greene <***@unleash.co.nz
> wrote:

> The technology sounds cool, but do we really want to carry over the
> phone numbers? Are they really that ingrained in the consciousness of
> everyone that we can't come up with something better?


It's not (just) about keeping phone numbers, it's about interoperability.
There's over 4 Billion phone lines (wired + wireless) out there at the
moment. If you can come up with something better than will still allow
those 4 billion lines to easily be able to reach me (and me reach them) by
giving them something as simple as a phone number then I suspect you're on
the way to making a lot of money :)

Until that happens, we're stuck with phone numbers, for better of worse...

Scott
Mark Foster
2009-01-01 00:14:41 UTC
Permalink
>
>> We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why
>> we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an
>> antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while
>> continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others -
>> escapes me.
>
> I'm still amazed at the number of (mostly small) businesses that I deal
> with that have ISP domain names in their email addresses. Which seems
> antiquated to me!
>

What geeks like us often fail to realise is that for many people -
especially small businesses - email is just a tool, it may not be central
to their business (ala they may not conduct a lot of business on it, but
need the means regardless) and resultantly, it's not their primary
concern.

Memorable phone numbers, on the other hand, make them readily available to
everyone within reach of a telephone, which is still more people than have
ready access to email. And by that I mean _right now_, not when they get
home to their computers.

Enum could be fairly useful as a bridging technology, if nothing else,
IMHO. And people who don't have the need for their own domain name, that
don't use an ISP based address (the future of which is determined by their
ISPs success or failure, and is non portable as previously observed) are
using a free email address (the future of which is determined by their
free mail providers success or failure, and whilst portable, is 'free' and
generally has service levels to match)... tying your long term
accessibility to an email address which isnt 'yours' may be as fraught
with difficulty as a phone number.

(And at least with number portability, you can move your number around;
much like you could a personal domain name.)

Mark.

PS: Happy New Year in Zulu Terms. May all your network devices remain
accurate, despite the leap second.
Andrew Ruthven
2009-01-01 07:08:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 13:14 +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
> >
> >> We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why
> >> we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an
> >> antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while
> >> continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others -
> >> escapes me.
> >
> > I'm still amazed at the number of (mostly small) businesses that I deal
> > with that have ISP domain names in their email addresses. Which seems
> > antiquated to me!
> >
>
> What geeks like us often fail to realise is that for many people -
> especially small businesses - email is just a tool, it may not be central
> to their business (ala they may not conduct a lot of business on it, but
> need the means regardless) and resultantly, it's not their primary
> concern.

Yeah, I was more trying to reply in jest to other people replying to
Jasper about email addresses not being so good for a call termination
end-point.

> Memorable phone numbers, on the other hand, make them readily available to
> everyone within reach of a telephone, which is still more people than have
> ready access to email. And by that I mean _right now_, not when they get
> home to their computers.

Totally agreed.

> Enum could be fairly useful as a bridging technology, if nothing else,
> IMHO. And people who don't have the need for their own domain name, that
> don't use an ISP based address (the future of which is determined by their
> ISPs success or failure, and is non portable as previously observed) are
> using a free email address (the future of which is determined by their
> free mail providers success or failure, and whilst portable, is 'free' and
> generally has service levels to match)... tying your long term
> accessibility to an email address which isnt 'yours' may be as fraught
> with difficulty as a phone number.
>
> (And at least with number portability, you can move your number around;
> much like you could a personal domain name.)

There is a number range in NZ reserved for independent services, I think
it is +64 868, but that is just a vague feeling. A quick search hasn't
found anything to back that up.

Cheers!

--
Andrew Ruthven
Wellington, New Zealand
At home: ***@etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally
| left blank.
Joe Abley
2009-01-01 17:09:00 UTC
Permalink
On 31 Dec 2008, at 15:18, Andrew Ruthven wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:44 +1300, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
>> How about I just tell you my "phone number" is ***@beer.com, your
>> software looks up "_sip._udp.beer.com. IN SRV", and places a call to
>> freddie at the server returned by that record. It's an optimised,
>> point-to-point connection, and it doesn't involve carrying over
>> antiquities like PSTN phone numbers.
>
> Because that is a solution to a different problem. That says for a
> domain, you can use SIP to contact some SIP endpoint (what happens
> for a
> business? reception only?), whereas in ENUM you can have a number of
> different technologies associated with a "phone number". For example,
> SIP, H.323, email, IM, http, carrier pigeon roost, PSTN, etc.

No, I think it's the same problem. There's nothing stopping additional
SRV records being present to provide other contact methods. The
details of the functionality available to meet the requirements no
doubt differ, but the basic requirements are the same.

The problem space for businesses is surely identical to that of
residences, if you consider the core functionality to be "signal a
method to contact a particular person or role".

sip:***@isc.org calls phones to ring on many peoples' desks; sip:***@isc.org
just rings my phone. mailto:***@isc.org sends mail in a way that
those same people can see it; mailto:***@isc.org is for contacting
just me. If we concede that we are not yet living in the future and
hence need a "front desk number", no doubt we can think up a generic
role for that, ***@isc.org or somehting.

Perspectives which start from the basis of "how do I establish a voice
connection to +1 519 670 9327" seem antiquated to me. Remove the
baggage, and it's "how has Joe signalled that I should contact him?"
The fact that we will no doubt need to maintain E.164 hooks into the
system for the benefit of people who can't use any identifier other
than a phone number does not mean that the directory service needs to
revolve around arbitrary numeric strings.


Joe
Richard Naylor
2009-01-01 21:40:55 UTC
Permalink
At 06:09 a.m. 2/01/2009, Joe Abley wrote:
>The problem space for businesses is surely identical to that of
>residences, if you consider the core functionality to be "signal a
>method to contact a particular person or role".
>
>sip:***@isc.org calls phones to ring on many peoples' desks;
>sip:***@isc.org
> just rings my phone. mailto:***@isc.org sends mail in a way that
>those same people can see it; mailto:***@isc.org is for contacting
>just me. If we concede that we are not yet living in the future and
>hence need a "front desk number", no doubt we can think up a generic
>role for that, ***@isc.org or somehting.
>
>Perspectives which start from the basis of "how do I establish a voice
>connection to +1 519 670 9327" seem antiquated to me. Remove the
>baggage, and it's "how has Joe signalled that I should contact him?"
>The fact that we will no doubt need to maintain E.164 hooks into the
>system for the benefit of people who can't use any identifier other
>than a phone number does not mean that the directory service needs to
>revolve around arbitrary numeric strings.

Fair point Joe if you were starting with a clean sheet of paper. But
we're not. Theres a largish installed base of legacy client devices
that need to be accommodated.

A while ago, when an IT Manager, part of my role was to look after a
PABX and system of some 3k phones. The total call spent was then
around $150k, of which 25% was fax (Internet was at the time about
$30K and included CityNet). Now the rough rule is that 80% of calls
were local. ie in Wellington. So an effective mechanism to remove the
local calls would have been attractive to me. It was worth roughly
$120k pa. Apply that to the top 50 businesses in WLG and theres a
potential saving of $6M. This has a multiplier effect in the economy
typically of 5:1, often as high as 7:1, but potentially the economic
impact is $30M pa.

So what I would be looking for is not a new total solution, but an
add on that allows my existing gear to say "Fred has called this
number,(name whatever), do I know where this is, or should I bomb off
to the PSTN ?"

It has to be REAL simple and easy and transparent to the end user.
Anyone who has ever been involved in a PABX cut over or replacement
and staff training, will explain that to many folks, even phone
numbers and simple phone functionality is a challenge. (how many
people stuff up call transfers in your office).

And remember that there are folks with businesses that enjoy good
profits off the current situation who might not particularly like VoIP peering.

As a complete aside, Tony Randle and I often looked at how we could
link PABXs using fiber E1 modems and DNSS. Sadly we both moved jobs
and never got it done. CityLink did do a lot of dark fiber where
there were E1 links for just this purpose (even for Telecom and
Telstra), but it was generally internal to an organisation. There was
no device that would have allowed organisations to join a mutual
peering switch on a subscription basis. Well there was but it had big
$ signs - well above the radar.

VoIP has potentially changed this.

Rich
ps - I already have what I wanted. My VoIP provider gives free local
calls. I registered for WLG and AKL and programmed my dial out codes
as 4 and 9, and advertise local numbers in both cities.
Matthew Moyle-Croft
2008-12-30 23:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Scott Howard wrote:
> Clearly the end result is the same - my phone rings - but without ENUM
> or something similar there is no optimization of the path taken, and
> the call is almost certainly going to leave the TCP network and go
> through at least 2 SIP-SS7 translations - and with a much higher cost
> both to you and to me!
Let's say one in a hundred calls I make could by via Public ENUM. I
pay about AU$3/hr to call your US number. Is the cost of having a
server setup at home to save AU$3 once in a hundred calls (for us that's
a few months) really worth it? (Let's say that's AU$18/year - that
probably doesn't pay for the power let alone my time and effort to be
worth it).

Even if I'm a business, I'm going to have to be making a lot of calls to
justify it as well as having to accept that, rather than PSTN quality
I'm going to be taking a bit of pot luck as to the quality of the
destinations SIP connection and availability and if I'm making that kind
of call volume then my discounts are going to be pretty deep for
PSTN/Mobile anyway and I've probably conquered LCR.

Private ENUM is a definate reality. It's quite likely that if I call
you in the USA that one of the network paths is via a VOIP peering point
that uses ENUM. It's a closed system with different ENUM views based
on bilateral (mostly) commercial relationships. Nominum sells devices
like Navitas (http://www.nominum.com/products/navitas.php) which make
this stuff sing.
Due to the nature of the US market - voice peering points are quite big
and quite important but unlikely to gain the traction in the AU/NZ
market due to the dominance of our incumbents.

The other issue about Public ENUM that I reckon will cause it to never
take off is the reality that most consumers want a closed system.
Otherwise we get more and more hysterical media rubbish about VOIP SPAM
(http://www.google.com.au/search?q=voip+spam). Public ENUM provides an
easy way for VOIP spammers to discover "free sites to call" and to start
calling them with no signalling verification.

Can public enum be saved? Maybe mobiles hold the key. The cost of
calling mobiles is high, the expanding nature of 3G broadband services
could mean that the tricky things like Fring could justify using ENUM to
discover P2P (phone to phone!) calling opportunities. In fact, maybe
it's going to be the key for making SMS cheaper?

MMC

--
Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks
Scott Howard
2008-12-31 01:04:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
<***@internode.com.au>wrote:

> Scott Howard wrote:
>
>> Clearly the end result is the same - my phone rings - but without ENUM or
>> something similar there is no optimization of the path taken, and the call
>> is almost certainly going to leave the TCP network and go through at least 2
>> SIP-SS7 translations - and with a much higher cost both to you and to me!
>>
> Let's say one in a hundred calls I make could by via Public ENUM. I pay
> about AU$3/hr to


That number could be so much higher - at least if the big players joined
in. Based on http://gizmo5.com/pc/backdoor/ over 10% of all calls would be
a definite possibility _today_, and that number is only going to get bigger
over time.


> call your US number. Is the cost of having a server setup at home to save
> AU$3 once in a hundred calls (for us that's a few months) really worth it?


As I said earlier, I don't see ENUM(*) as a home-user thing - it's a VOIP
provider thing. How many calls go out of Internode (or MNF or Vonage or any
other provider) today that traverse the PSTN network only to terminate on
another VOIP providers system? At what cost?

Sure, if someone wants to come out with an ATA that does ENUM(*) then bonus
to the people that use it - they get free calls to some people (probably
along with several NAT-traversal issues), but the real win here is for the
providers.

The real question here is whether any of the VOIP providers want to try and
turn SIP-based VOIP into a real network, or if they just want to leave it as
the technology for the end-points, with PSTN looking after the routing.
Historically simply doing the latter made sense, but as critical mass
changes towards VOIP then avoiding PSTN for inter-provider calls makes far
more sense. Private peering is a start, but even that is still the
equivalent of filtering much of the worlds email through UUCP because it's
easier than using SMTP everywhere...


(*) And by ENUM I mean "ENUM or something that works towards the same goal",
not necessarily RFC3761-based ENUM.

Scott.
Matthew Moyle-Croft
2008-12-31 01:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Scott,
There are two different things here:

(1) ENUM being used by providers - definately happening, mainly in the
US at the moment - hence the Gizmo backdoor project.
(2) Public ENUM - hasn't gone anywhere and probably won't.

In AU and NZ because of the dominance of the incumbent telcos the
amount of interconnect between providers for PSTN numbers is low and
so voice peering points haven't taken off (eg. see PIPE's still born
project).

There has to be some kind of scale in order to justify VOIP providers
meeting at peering point. At the moment the scale to justify the
infrastructure and cost doesn't exist. It may never exist here as
the reality is the minutes are migrating to mobile and I doubt mobile
networks are willing to forgo inbound revenue.

I suspect that there's one caveat to this. NBN in both AU/NZ may
mean that SS7 stops being the mechanism for interconnect. This may
mean some rationality for peering locations being setup for voice
interconnect with SIP and ENUM but given the behaviour of the
incumbents and majors I doubt it.

SIP based interconnects are becoming more prevalent here in AU. But
they don't usually involve ENUM (see Macca's post).

MMC

On 31/12/2008, at 11:34 AM, Scott Howard wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <***@internode.com.au
> > wrote:
> Scott Howard wrote:
> Clearly the end result is the same - my phone rings - but without
> ENUM or something similar there is no optimization of the path
> taken, and the call is almost certainly going to leave the TCP
> network and go through at least 2 SIP-SS7 translations - and with a
> much higher cost both to you and to me!
> Let's say one in a hundred calls I make could by via Public ENUM.
> I pay about AU$3/hr to
>
> That number could be so much higher - at least if the big players
> joined in. Based on http://gizmo5.com/pc/backdoor/ over 10% of all
> calls would be a definite possibility _today_, and that number is
> only going to get bigger over time.
>
> call your US number. Is the cost of having a server setup at home
> to save AU$3 once in a hundred calls (for us that's a few months)
> really worth it?
>
> As I said earlier, I don't see ENUM(*) as a home-user thing - it's a
> VOIP provider thing. How many calls go out of Internode (or MNF or
> Vonage or any other provider) today that traverse the PSTN network
> only to terminate on another VOIP providers system? At what cost?
>
> Sure, if someone wants to come out with an ATA that does ENUM(*)
> then bonus to the people that use it - they get free calls to some
> people (probably along with several NAT-traversal issues), but the
> real win here is for the providers.
>
> The real question here is whether any of the VOIP providers want to
> try and turn SIP-based VOIP into a real network, or if they just
> want to leave it as the technology for the end-points, with PSTN
> looking after the routing. Historically simply doing the latter
> made sense, but as critical mass changes towards VOIP then avoiding
> PSTN for inter-provider calls makes far more sense. Private peering
> is a start, but even that is still the equivalent of filtering much
> of the worlds email through UUCP because it's easier than using SMTP
> everywhere...
>
>
> (*) And by ENUM I mean "ENUM or something that works towards the
> same goal", not necessarily RFC3761-based ENUM.
>
> Scott.
>

--
Matthew Moyle-Croft Internode/Agile Peering and Core Networks
Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: ***@internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
Richard Naylor
2008-12-31 02:45:02 UTC
Permalink
At 02:04 p.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:

>As I said earlier, I don't see ENUM(*) as a home-user thing - it's a
>VOIP provider thing. How many calls go out of Internode (or MNF or
>Vonage or any other provider) today that traverse the PSTN network
>only to terminate on another VOIP providers system? At what cost?
>
>Sure, if someone wants to come out with an ATA that does ENUM(*)
>then bonus to the people that use it - they get free calls to some
>people (probably along with several NAT-traversal issues), but the
>real win here is for the providers.

Sorry - I do see VoIP peering as an end user thing and I'd love my
ATAs to be able to peer. If they can't then maybe my VoIP provider
would offer that to me as a service.

I'm a small business (me + one part-timer) yet we use 20+ lines and 5
or 6 ISPs. The ISPs are used depending on their peering reach on a
job-by-job basis and on their network type and reach. Equally,
I use the VoIP with either AKl or WLG numbers, because I get local
calls for free. ie I do a peer connection. My clients often use cell
phones for 10-12 hours a day non-stop, or go hunting for a landline
(or sidle up to my van and borrow a line).

Sometimes I freight an ATA overseas or to another location, just so
they can call me (using AKL numbers) for free. (we use ATAs because
they give analog outputs to go into hybrids)

What I'm leading to is that end users have this pressure for lower
costs and will find solutions, even if they are somewhat ad hoc. What
we are talking about is adding structure and interoperability to
this, so that we don't see a huge proliferation in ad hoc solutions.

When WIX was first mooted in '96-97, the I stood for Information, not
Internet. It was envisaged that internetworking would take place
including, voice and video. The initial voice discussions were about
linking PABXs with E1 and DNSS (if I recall correctly).

As an Internetworking group we should try and solve this issue (VoIP
Peering), otherwise users will have all sorts of alternative ad hoc
solutions to get voice between organisations and by passing the PSTN.
The call volumes may be low, but NZ also used to hang off one 9700bps
modem. And so did Australia.
Andrew McMillan
2008-12-30 21:40:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 08:16 +1300, Blair Harrison wrote:
>
> Why anyone gets so attached to 'their' phone number (which is not
> really theirs, but rather their telco's) is beyond me.

My phone number certainly isn't my telco's. In fact the phone number I
am using is currently on it's third telco, and I fully expect to move it
again in around 12 months time.

The telcos might be happier to see enum happen now that they have sold
off their directory service, and had number portability thrust upon them
though.

We're getting pretty off topic here - just as well tonight is one of
those nights where we all stand around and drink beer!

Cheers :-)


Andrew.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN
Necessity is the mother of documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Jones
2008-12-29 19:09:09 UTC
Permalink
To quote myself from before.

>If we get the allocation I will be adding several servers in
>wellington and auckland. Then from that I would like to be setup up
>some VoIP exchange points most likely starting in APE and WIX.

I want this to be an open and fair system. InternetNZ has been sitting
on this for two years, and this looks like they have not moved forward
on the schedule for the task force. If they have not why haven't they
applied for the allocation. I believe this is something that can not
just be left idle. Someone needs to lead the way if we really want to
do something new and special with telecommunications in this country.I
will be contacting MED after the first of the year. I do have a few
contacts there.We need to work together and not slam people who take
something on!!!

I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my
company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are
not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to
know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from
is really counterproductive.

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:33 PM, David Farrar <***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> From: Steve Phillips [mailto:***@focb.co.nz]
>>(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
>>DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)
>
> I would not get overly concerned. While I can't speak for MED, my
> recollection of their policy is that any application for the delegation will
> be referred by MED to either the TCF or NAD (basically the Telcos) for
> comment, and it is highly unlikely any delegation will be agreed to unless
> they agree. If they did agree, then a recommendation would probably go to
> the Minister, and if he approves would the ITU be told to approve the
> delegation.
>
> So it is not just a matter of first in first served.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Simon Lyall
2008-12-29 19:41:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, James Jones wrote:
> I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my
> company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are
> not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to
> know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from
> is really counterproductive.

I have no idea who you are ( I know another "J Jones" ) but as I said in a
private email it might perhaps help if you did tell people something about
yourself, your company and what your plans are for the ENUM allocation if
you get it. I mean solid plans like who sub-delegations will work,
business models, disputes, charges etc.

A large number of people on this list remember the years of problems that
occurred with the .nz management until it settled down. Thus people are
a little weary when a company many of us know nothing about proposes
getting a similar sort of delegation.

Econet is another example.

--
Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Steve Phillips
2009-01-04 06:01:03 UTC
Permalink
James Jones wrote:
[snip random drivel]
> I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my
> company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are
> not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to
> know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from
> is really counterproductive.

I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions

[quote]
Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the
4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you
working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a
closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can
point towards you as you asked?
[/quote]

By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a
private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect
quiet you'll stop people from complaining about it.

nice.

(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this)

--
Steve.

PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or your
company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to obtain
the NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed
commercial purposes.
James Jones
2009-01-04 10:01:47 UTC
Permalink
I believe I have said serveral time in the thread I want to it be an
open system!!!!

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Steve Phillips <***@focb.co.nz> wrote:
> James Jones wrote:
> [snip random drivel]
>>
>> I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my
>> company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are
>> not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to
>> know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from
>> is really counterproductive.
>
> I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions
>
> [quote]
> Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the
> 4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you
> working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a
> closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can
> point towards you as you asked?
> [/quote]
>
> By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a
> private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect quiet
> you'll stop people from complaining about it.
>
> nice.
>
> (personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
> DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this)
>
> --
> Steve.
>
> PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or your
> company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to obtain the
> NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed commercial
> purposes.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
James Jones
2009-01-04 10:04:07 UTC
Permalink
I have not finish working out the details. I will be contacting MED
next week to start discussion if it is posiible.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:01 PM, James Jones <***@freedomnet.co.nz> wrote:
> I believe I have said serveral time in the thread I want to it be an
> open system!!!!
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Steve Phillips <***@focb.co.nz> wrote:
>> James Jones wrote:
>> [snip random drivel]
>>>
>>> I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my
>>> company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are
>>> not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to
>>> know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from
>>> is really counterproductive.
>>
>> I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions
>>
>> [quote]
>> Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the
>> 4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you
>> working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a
>> closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can
>> point towards you as you asked?
>> [/quote]
>>
>> By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a
>> private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect quiet
>> you'll stop people from complaining about it.
>>
>> nice.
>>
>> (personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
>> DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this)
>>
>> --
>> Steve.
>>
>> PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or your
>> company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to obtain the
>> NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed commercial
>> purposes.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZNOG mailing list
>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Jones
> Managing Director
> Freedom Networks
> +64 6 3678300
> +1 413 771 1402
> ***@freedomnet.co.nz
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Patrick Jordan-Smith
2009-01-04 10:18:40 UTC
Permalink
So.

You applied for the delegation even though you have not worked out
what you want to do with it?


On 4/01/2009, at 11:04 PM, James Jones wrote:

> I have not finish working out the details. I will be contacting MED
> next week to start discussion if it is posiible.
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:01 PM, James Jones
> <***@freedomnet.co.nz> wrote:
>> I believe I have said serveral time in the thread I want to it be an
>> open system!!!!
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Steve Phillips <***@focb.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>> James Jones wrote:
>>> [snip random drivel]
>>>>
>>>> I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or
>>>> my
>>>> company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are
>>>> not are
>>>> not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to
>>>> know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info
>>>> from
>>>> is really counterproductive.
>>>
>>> I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the
>>> 4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you
>>> working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a
>>> closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it
>>> can
>>> point towards you as you asked?
>>> [/quote]
>>>
>>> By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it
>>> to be a
>>> private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this
>>> aspect quiet
>>> you'll stop people from complaining about it.
>>>
>>> nice.
>>>
>>> (personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/
>>> the
>>> DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve.
>>>
>>> PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or
>>> your
>>> company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to
>>> obtain the
>>> NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed
>>> commercial
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NZNOG mailing list
>>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Jones
>> Managing Director
>> Freedom Networks
>> +64 6 3678300
>> +1 413 771 1402
>> ***@freedomnet.co.nz
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Jones
> Managing Director
> Freedom Networks
> +64 6 3678300
> +1 413 771 1402
> ***@freedomnet.co.nz
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Steve Phillips
2009-01-04 10:15:15 UTC
Permalink
James Jones wrote:
> I believe I have said serveral time in the thread I want to it be an
> open system!!!!

And 'Open System' run by a closed commercial enterprise is not un
fathomable.

You have also not answered any of Craigs questions, and I personally am
pretty keen on knowing what the answers are as well - I'm also sure a
lot of other people on this list are interested as well.

Shall we start with what _exactly_ your plans are for the delegation ?
(and 'an open system' is not really an answer)

--
Steve.

PS: I also note that your original post was sent from an Alcatel-Lucent
e-mail address. Can we therefore assume that you are working along side
them on this, and hence, alongside Telecom NZ ?

>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Steve Phillips <***@focb.co.nz> wrote:
>> James Jones wrote:
>> [snip random drivel]
>>> I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my
>>> company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are
>>> not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to
>>> know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from
>>> is really counterproductive.
>> I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions
>>
>> [quote]
>> Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the
>> 4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you
>> working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a
>> closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can
>> point towards you as you asked?
>> [/quote]
>>
>> By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a
>> private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect quiet
>> you'll stop people from complaining about it.
>>
>> nice.
>>
>> (personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the
>> DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this)
>>
>> --
>> Steve.
>>
>> PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or your
>> company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to obtain the
>> NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed commercial
>> purposes.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZNOG mailing list
>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>
>>
>
>
>
Don Gould
2009-01-04 11:10:37 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry but I really feel a call to order is required here!

I've read over half the posts in this thread and see no reason for false
accusations.

How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?

How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?

Seems to me that there are people here who are just jealous that
someone's trying to do something with this enum stuff.

How about getting this thread moving back in a positive direction rather
than a pointless flame?!

Cheers Don


Steve Phillips wrote:
> James Jones wrote:
>> I believe I have said serveral time in the thread I want to it be an
>> open system!!!!
>
> And 'Open System' run by a closed commercial enterprise is not un
> fathomable.
>
> You have also not answered any of Craigs questions, and I personally am
> pretty keen on knowing what the answers are as well - I'm also sure a
> lot of other people on this list are interested as well.
>
> Shall we start with what _exactly_ your plans are for the delegation ?
> (and 'an open system' is not really an answer)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Steve Phillips
2009-01-04 12:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Don Gould wrote:
> I'm sorry but I really feel a call to order is required here!

Certainly.

> I've read over half the posts in this thread and see no reason for false
> accusations.

False accusations ? the thing I'm finding is that people are asking for
more information and we are getting 'yes yes, we will give you the
information if you ask for it !' which isn't actually giving anyone
anything about the intentions behind the application. This is very
typical of commercial entities (and infact, anyone trying to divert
attention away from something) when they are about to do something that
will not necessarily be in the publics best interest. This has been an
exceedingly common tactic in the NZ Internet industry since it started.

The lack of any positive from JONES JAMES F and the ability to silently
sidestep any real questions on his companies intentions for the enum
allocation raise warning bells in my mind.

I guess you've got a different outlook. Good for you, at least you're
still smiling as you get shafted.

> How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?

I really don't think it will ever get used, which is probably for the
best. I also think allocating/activating it with no set plan as to how
this is going to be implemented is dangerous. All it would take is a
reasonably large carrier (verizon ? etc..) to perform a lookup, get a
response and incorrectly route a call and you'd end up with chaos
(keeping in mind that this is _supposed_ to be an official way route
PSTN allocated numbers via IP). How are number allocations going to be
handled ? how about coping with number portability ? do we sub delegate
based on the NAD ? if the NAD has control then why is a
private/commercial entity looking after the allocation ? is this entity
going to charge to gain access to this system (even tho its open ! yay
for word games) and if so, how much and will any charges slow adoption ?

oh, and answering Craigs questions would also be nice.

> How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?

I dont have any ideas other than 'it should be allocated to the
MED/DNC/Peter Mott in order to stop this sort of thing from happening.

> Seems to me that there are people here who are just jealous that
> someone's trying to do something with this enum stuff.

Yup, what a wonderful conclusion you've come to. I'd just like to make
sure that a system such as enum, that is seen as a standard (with a low
uptake, granted) does not fall in to the hands of some crowd that will
in all likely-hood exploit it to make $$, prove to me that this is NOT
the case and i'll happily shut up. (and yeah, I know there are checks
around the allocations and I would _hope_ that they all work swimmingly,
but call be a skeptic - especially when there are names such as
Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom NZ behind the application based on the
original e-mail sent to the list)

> How about getting this thread moving back in a positive direction rather
> than a pointless flame?!

I find anything questioning why a public standard falls under the
control of an unknown commercial entity, in order to line someones
pockets, to have a reasonably valid point. If you see this as being
pointless, then feel free to use your delete button or ignore the thread.

I know, doom and gloom - but I have yet to meet anyone that can predict
the future and looking back after the fact and saying 'oops, we maybe
shouldn't have done that' doesn't really help things move forward. The
NZ Internet industry has done that too often in the past, why are we
doing it again now ?

--
Steve.
Dean Pemberton
2009-01-04 18:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Don Gould wrote:
>
> How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?
>
> How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?
>
>
>
>
/me puts on his Org Committee hat

I'm sure even at this late stage we could find space for an enum talk or
panel discussion.
Is this something that people are interested in? Anyone want to volunteer?
James are you registered for the conference?


Dean
James Jones
2009-01-04 18:16:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:09 AM, James Jones <***@freedomnet.co.nz> wrote:
> Due to a funds shortage I will not be attending NZNOG09. I really wish
> I could go!!! If some how you still wanted to do it I could make
> myself available by phone if you guys could find a speaker phone....:)
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Dean Pemberton <***@deanpemberton.com> wrote:
>> Don Gould wrote:
>>>
>>> How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?
I would like to see like to see the system being used by providers
first. Also I would like to see used by end users, with no
restrictions. If you put you number in the registery you need to be
able to accept the call from anyone.

>>>
>>> How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?
It needs to operate like an open source project where we have
volenteers that help keep the servers running. It would need take
donations for providers and end users possible to help offset server
and colo costs.

On ther surface I would like to see run like e164.org, but have it a
little more robust and production worthy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> /me puts on his Org Committee hat
>>
>> I'm sure even at this late stage we could find space for an enum talk or
>> panel discussion.
>> Is this something that people are interested in? Anyone want to volunteer?
>> James are you registered for the conference?
>>
>>
>> Dean
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZNOG mailing list
>> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Jones
> Managing Director
> Freedom Networks
> +64 6 3678300
> +1 413 771 1402
> ***@freedomnet.co.nz
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Peter Mott
2009-01-04 18:43:01 UTC
Permalink
>>>>
>>>> How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?
> It needs to operate like an open source project where we have
> volenteers that help keep the servers running. It would need take
> donations for providers and end users possible to help offset server
> and colo costs.

Before considering technical aspects, or applying for delegation its a
good idea to have a simple plain English policy that prescribes who
can register names, what names may be registered, and a process by
which the policy itself may be changed. Giving the parent zone
administrator power to adjudicate when the community of interest has a
dispute with itself is also wise, or if this isn't possible another
neutral party.

Once you have a good policy framework in place, it will matter much
less (from a political perspective) who has control of the name servers.

regards

Peter Mott
Swizzle | Wholesale Hosted Servers
Tel. +64 21 279 4995
-/-
Dean Pemberton
2009-01-04 18:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Don Gould wrote:
>
> How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?
>
> How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?
>
>
>
>
/me puts on his Org Committee hat

I'm sure even at this late stage we could find space for an enum talk or
panel discussion.
Is this something that people are interested in? Anyone want to volunteer?
James are you registered for the conference?


Dean
Michael Sutton
2008-12-29 22:19:32 UTC
Permalink
I would suggest that NZNOG community read InternetNZ's ENUM archive there
are two major ENUM related reports as well as an Open Source Software that
InternetNZ released. I enclose some links to downloads and documents I refer
to (see below).

ENUM should be activated for New Zealand as it is an enabler which permits
systems and network developers to utilize ENUM in a transparent way to the
end user but which enhances the phone address lookup and uses the DNS which
is already globally implemented.

Note The ENUM system also enables PSTN numbers to be entered and used
(subject to the rules of the Registry).

Here's some points:

1. While an InternetNZ Councilor from 2003 - July 2007* and as Chair of
the ENUM Task force I advocated for ENUM to be fast tracked and activated
with a Personal User Agent software (UCI PUA service). ENUM has however
been frozen since 2006 by agreements between MED, TCF and InternetNZ to
delay ENUM which IMHO does not support our interest's of choice through ENUM
operation and access.

2. In my opinion the MED should be required by Government to request
delegation of 4.6.e164.arpa (ENUM) unto itself. MED should host ENUM on
trial servers on their own ip address space which should be used for
boot-strap testing and which can then be transitioned with technical
delegation, operation and policy being determined on a fast track basis. The
Government should include in the MED's key performance indicators
measurements to incentivise their role in the implementation of ENUM for New
Zealand.

3. There were discussions resulting in the current situation but there
has been no ENUM Trial between InternetNZ, the TCF, NAD and MED.

4. In 2005 InternetNZ as part of the then ENUM initiative and research
- INZ funded a UCI, PUA, ENUM (ETSI EG 284 004) software prototype which was
developed by CatalystIT (extreme programming - shouts to AndrewR) which used
the ENUM directory system, but the trial did not activate the 4.6.e164.arpa
delegation, which it would in practice, or trial an ENUM authorization and
registration process.

In connection with this work: The final version ETSI EG 284 004 in September
2007 recommendations stated that UCI & PUA will use the public ENUM
e164.arpa as a global directory. The work of InternetNZ and CatalystIT in
New Zealand was recognized in reports on this matter to the European
Commission and was used during the development of the final ETSI
Guide/Standard which was approved in Europe by vote in 2007. The APEC
Business Advisory Council's Report to the APEC Leaders in Bussan also
included direct reference to this work. Note PUA is a Personal User Agent
routing firewall system for client of isp telco services and UCI is an
opt-in Universal Communications Identifier.

Recently an Italian company undertaking a research and development contract
for communication services for blind people (was contracted by the Italian
Ministry of Science to implement a system using UCI PUA ENUM) communicated
and requested access to InternetNZ's reports and the open source program
code that InternetNZ released.

5. InternetNZ has $20,000 allocated for ENUM in the current place
holder budget.

6. The ITU will not approve the ENUM delegation application of James
Jones as the MED will not send a letter of endorsement to the ITU in support
of this application - or will they.


Regards
Michael Sutton
http://www.awacs.co.nz


http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum
http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum/pua-uci-feasibility
-1-1-4-smaller.pdf
http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum/Complete%20Enum%20T
rial%20Report%20040705.pdf

http://www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/tf/archive/enum/enumback.html

* resigned.
Mark Harris
2008-12-30 00:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Michael Sutton wrote:
[stuff I agree with, as I was also a councilor at the time and on the
ENUM workforce] but:

> 6. The ITU will not approve the ENUM delegation application of James
> Jones as the MED will not send a letter of endorsement to the ITU in
> support of this application - or will they.

It's more accurate to say that it is extremely unlikely that this
application would be approved (you never know with MED) but, as
previously stated, MED would consult with the TCF and they are most
likely to say no.


James, it's not really fair to say that "InternetNZ has been sitting on
this for two years, and this looks like they have not moved forward on
the schedule for the task force. If they have not why haven't they
applied for the allocation".

We (and I mainly mean Michael but also Keith and Jordan and others)
worked hard to persuade the telcos that it was a Good Thing(tm) but the
TCF is where the process got bogged down. They kept saying 'yes, we must
do a test' but never when or how.

There's little point in applying for the delegation if you know it's not
going to be accepted. We did indeed discuss setting up an independent
server and "just doing it" but, without the formal delegation, it's a
little hard for people to find you. Personally, I'd like to see the
decision made by the Telecommunications Commissioner, rather than the
people at MED, but that's government for you.

James, I hope you're not basing your business plan on getting the
delegation, because I can't see it happening.

Regards

Mark Harris
(former Councilor, InternetNZ)
http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/
James Jones
2008-12-30 00:19:54 UTC
Permalink
I never went into to this expecting for it make through. I know there
a various hoops that need to jumped through. When I applied I thought
two things would happen.

1. It would go through - Very unlikely
2. It would get rejected and it would get everyone talking about it.

I have received some response from ITU. So thing is no dead yet. I
will be talking to the MED in Jan. I just hope out of all this it is
not another two years before this gets traction in New Zealand and all
us can work together on some sort of VoIP peering in New Zealand. I
really like the suggestion of e164.org they are a great group of
people.

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Mark Harris <***@tracs.co.nz> wrote:
> Michael Sutton wrote:
> [stuff I agree with, as I was also a councilor at the time and on the
> ENUM workforce] but:
>
> > 6. The ITU will not approve the ENUM delegation application of James
> > Jones as the MED will not send a letter of endorsement to the ITU in
> > support of this application - or will they.
>
> It's more accurate to say that it is extremely unlikely that this
> application would be approved (you never know with MED) but, as
> previously stated, MED would consult with the TCF and they are most
> likely to say no.
>
>
> James, it's not really fair to say that "InternetNZ has been sitting on
> this for two years, and this looks like they have not moved forward on
> the schedule for the task force. If they have not why haven't they
> applied for the allocation".
>
> We (and I mainly mean Michael but also Keith and Jordan and others)
> worked hard to persuade the telcos that it was a Good Thing(tm) but the
> TCF is where the process got bogged down. They kept saying 'yes, we must
> do a test' but never when or how.
>
> There's little point in applying for the delegation if you know it's not
> going to be accepted. We did indeed discuss setting up an independent
> server and "just doing it" but, without the formal delegation, it's a
> little hard for people to find you. Personally, I'd like to see the
> decision made by the Telecommunications Commissioner, rather than the
> people at MED, but that's government for you.
>
> James, I hope you're not basing your business plan on getting the
> delegation, because I can't see it happening.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Harris
> (former Councilor, InternetNZ)
> http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZNOG mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>



--
James Jones
Managing Director
Freedom Networks
+64 6 3678300
+1 413 771 1402
***@freedomnet.co.nz
Michael Sutton
2008-12-30 01:01:43 UTC
Permalink
The point about this "ENUM" e164.arpa is that it is 'official'.
Unfortunately E164.org is not however it represents users who can not or do
not want to use the ITU sanctioned ENUM system.

Also here's a couple of links:

The ITU ENUM page which details their role in the process:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/

A PDF listing the current active countries and the Delegee ( mainly
Governments )
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/08/T02080000010002PDFE.pdf

Best regards
Michael Sutton

I wish:
0.0.5.5.0.3.1.2.4.6.e164.arpa

http://www.awacs.co.nz

James Jones wrote:
> 1. It would go through - Very unlikely
> 2. It would get rejected and it would get everyone talking about it.
>
> I have received some response from ITU. So thing is no dead
> yet. I will be talking to the MED in Jan. I just hope out of
> all this it is not another two years before this gets
> traction in New Zealand and all us can work together on some
> sort of VoIP peering in New Zealand. I really like the
> suggestion of e164.org they are a great group of people.
Leo Vegoda
2008-12-30 19:33:07 UTC
Permalink
On 30/12/2008 4:19, "Joe Abley" <***@hopcount.ca> wrote:

[...]

> I was not involved, but I hear that in North America there was a
> tremendous amount of layer-9 activity surrounding the creation of a
> testbed registry for 1.e164.arpa -- presumably far more than would
> ever be required for 4.6.e164.arpa, given that +1 includes several
> countries. The testbed registry was created, at CIRA in Ottawa. As far
> as I know, it remains empty, some years later.

The original approval was for a temporary technical trial. I seem to
remember the delegation being removed at the end of the trial. 1.e164.arpa
doesn't appear to be delegated at the moment.

Regards,

Leo
Joe Abley
2008-12-30 19:37:44 UTC
Permalink
On 30 Dec 2008, at 14:33, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On 30/12/2008 4:19, "Joe Abley" <***@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I was not involved, but I hear that in North America there was a
>> tremendous amount of layer-9 activity surrounding the creation of a
>> testbed registry for 1.e164.arpa -- presumably far more than would
>> ever be required for 4.6.e164.arpa, given that +1 includes several
>> countries. The testbed registry was created, at CIRA in Ottawa. As
>> far
>> as I know, it remains empty, some years later.
>
> The original approval was for a temporary technical trial. I seem to
> remember the delegation being removed at the end of the trial.
> 1.e164.arpa
> doesn't appear to be delegated at the moment.

The trial may have completed, but I hear the emptiness persists :-)


Joe
James Jones
2009-01-04 17:59:55 UTC
Permalink
I am trying as much info as posibble. I would like to see open enum system, in which anyone can register their numbers. I would like to see it back by providers as well. I really don't want anything in return, execcpt to able to have cheaper call routing for everyone.

Steve I can understand your dubiousness in regards to the application. I am not trying to hide anything. Also to clarify, I am a contractor for ALU, but I am not tied Telecom.


-----Original Message-----
From: "Steve Phillips" <***@focb.co.nz>
To: "nznog" <***@list.waikato.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/5/09 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [nznog] enum

Don Gould wrote:
> I'm sorry but I really feel a call to order is required here!

Certainly.

> I've read over half the posts in this thread and see no reason for false
> accusations.

False accusations ? the thing I'm finding is that people are asking for
more information and we are getting 'yes yes, we will give you the
information if you ask for it !' which isn't actually giving anyone
anything about the intentions behind the application. This is very
typical of commercial entities (and infact, anyone trying to divert
attention away from something) when they are about to do something that
will not necessarily be in the publics best interest. This has been an
exceedingly common tactic in the NZ Internet industry since it started.

The lack of any positive from JONES JAMES F and the ability to silently
sidestep any real questions on his companies intentions for the enum
allocation raise warning bells in my mind.

I guess you've got a different outlook. Good for you, at least you're
still smiling as you get shafted.

> How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?

I really don't think it will ever get used, which is probably for the
best. I also think allocating/activating it with no set plan as to how
this is going to be implemented is dangerous. All it would take is a
reasonably large carrier (verizon ? etc..) to perform a lookup, get a
response and incorrectly route a call and you'd end up with chaos
(keeping in mind that this is _supposed_ to be an official way route
PSTN allocated numbers via IP). How are number allocations going to be
handled ? how about coping with number portability ? do we sub delegate
based on the NAD ? if the NAD has control then why is a
private/commercial entity looking after the allocation ? is this entity
going to charge to gain access to this system (even tho its open ! yay
for word games) and if so, how much and will any charges slow adoption ?

oh, and answering Craigs questions would also be nice.

> How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?

I dont have any ideas other than 'it should be allocated to the
MED/DNC/Peter Mott in order to stop this sort of thing from happening.

> Seems to me that there are people here who are just jealous that
> someone's trying to do something with this enum stuff.

Yup, what a wonderful conclusion you've come to. I'd just like to make
sure that a system such as enum, that is seen as a standard (with a low
uptake, granted) does not fall in to the hands of some crowd that will
in all likely-hood exploit it to make $$, prove to me that this is NOT
the case and i'll happily shut up. (and yeah, I know there are checks
around the allocations and I would _hope_ that they all work swimmingly,
but call be a skeptic - especially when there are names such as
Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom NZ behind the application based on the
original e-mail sent to the list)

> How about getting this thread moving back in a positive direction rather
> than a pointless flame?!

I find anything questioning why a public standard falls under the
control of an unknown commercial entity, in order to line someones
pockets, to have a reasonably valid point. If you see this as being
pointless, then feel free to use your delete button or ignore the thread.

I know, doom and gloom - but I have yet to meet anyone that can predict
the future and looking back after the fact and saying 'oops, we maybe
shouldn't have done that' doesn't really help things move forward. The
NZ Internet industry has done that too often in the past, why are we
doing it again now ?

--
Steve.
Michael Sutton
2009-01-07 03:26:38 UTC
Permalink
This is my third email on the subject of ENUM. (on a diet)

Firstly; I would appreciate and hope that experts including members of NZNOG
do not argue to justify why USER ENUM should NOT be implemented in New
Zealand. It is not up to individuals to quantify how it will be used or the
value of it to end users and application developers in the fullness of time.
It is instead up to our community to actively promote and facilitate the use
of any reasonable protocol on the Internet.

The truly unique fact about 4.6.e164.arpa is that it is an officially
sanctioned/moderated top level domain using the stable DNS ENUM services.
ENUM (the protocol) is operational around the world and also in New Zealand
via DNS client USER ENUM enquiries made both to countries already actively
using e164.arpa as well as other registries such as e164.org TLD's.

For myself I see this as a real issue of my personal Internet usage rights
in New Zealand. Imagine if we were still considering whether New Zealand
should have its own CC TLD. That is the situation we are in with respect to
USER ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa. I cannot opt-in to register my New Zealand
telephone number and all my associated communication services while ~50
countries can. Imagine if each internet protocol had to be approved by
local entities such as the MED, TCF and InternetNZ. Eg. email or http/https
web or skype or h323 - such a scenario is impossible to countenance. Yet
User ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa delegation has been "frozen" for years by agreements
between the MED (TCF and InternetNZ). 4.6.e164.arpa delegation must be
approved by the MED and as such I recommend that the MED delegate it to
themselves and fast track operation and policy implementation.

New Zealand Telco companies who are members of the TCF already use PROVIDER
ENUM as a backroom routing protocol. There is nothing they need from USER
ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa but they do need to co-operate with the authentication
process for establishing USER ENUM registrations.

The political issue here of USER ENUM is why New Zealanders are being
'prevented' from using this service.

We need a least cost, least capture USER ENUM Registry to be established
which puts ENUM client users as well as application developers interests as
the prime consideration.



Issues concerning +1 delegation:

Previous emails suggested that the United States +1 delegation was lapsed as
there was no demand - This is not the situation.

It is useful to appreciate that +1 represents a number of Caribbean
countries as well as Canada and the United States and the complications that
this fact originally had. +1 had been registered delegated for trial to
"CC1 ENUM LLC" (a private company Country Code 1 ENUM Limited Liability
Company). This Company's shareholders include AT&T, Sprint-Nextel, and
Verizon etc - Board Papers show the stake-holder were/are not in themselves
interested in supporting USER ENUM instead their primary goal was PROVIDER
ENUM with delegation of 1.e164.arpa to the Company.

The US State Department however "refused" to renew the +1 registration to
CC1 ENUM LLC in February 2008 as the Company does not need the delegation to
operate PROVIDER ENUM. Indeed the Company is proceeding with PROVIDER ENUM
using 1.e164.us. (which is not a sanctioned ITU ENUM).

Then in May of 2008, positively supported by United States Representatives,
the ITU SG adopted "new" guidelines to cover delegation of numbers such as
+1 which represent multiple countries. Therefore Canada and the other
Caribbean countries are also supporting this guideline.

What appears to have happened is that because CC1 ENUM LLC was only really
interested in routing optimization, the US Government has pulled the plug on
it because it was making no plan for USER ENUM and rather than letting the
LLC remain as the Delegee the U.S.G. decided to prevent capture by this
entity. This situation closely mirrors that in New Zealand - the networks
want PROVIDER ENUM but eschew USER ENUM.

The actions of the US Government in May 2008 (Geneva) show that they are
very keen for USER ENUM to be enabled for the 1.e164.arpa countries.



My advice to the Minister:

On the 19th December 2008 I wrote to Ministers of the NZ Government
requesting (in one part) that implementation of USER ENUM be expedited and
set as a KPI of the relevant Ministry.

I was completely unaware at the time of the application that was to be made
on the 23rd of December by Mr. Jones for delegation of 4.6.e164.arpra.

Unless the ITU receives a letter from the MED within 60 days of Mr. Jones'
application the ITU will refuse the application. This notice of refusal
will then be communicated by the email list to every international
subscriber to the list (private/corporate/government) and will show New
Zealand, I suggest, in a disorganized and poor light. (No criticism of Mr.
Jones)

Should this ENUM 4.6.e164.arpa registration situation then be repeated again
and again and again then Kiwis will look like Thanksgiving turkeys.


Best regards
Michael Sutton
( Previously InternetNZ's ENUM Task Force Chairperson.)

http://www.awacs.co.nz

(NZNOG conference timing provides conflicts with my current schedule :( ) I
suggest Andrew Ruthven and Don Christie from Catalyst be invited to attend
any panel session NZNOG has)
Jasper Bryant-Greene
2009-01-07 03:58:31 UTC
Permalink
On 7/01/2009, at 4:26 PM, Michael Sutton wrote:
> Unless the ITU receives a letter from the MED within 60 days of Mr.
> Jones'
> application the ITU will refuse the application. This notice of
> refusal
> will then be communicated by the email list to every international
> subscriber to the list (private/corporate/government) and will show
> New
> Zealand, I suggest, in a disorganized and poor light. (No criticism
> of Mr.
> Jones)

New Zealand will look disorganised and poor because we didn't allow a
private entity who avoids providing any substantial information about
their plans for the delegation to effectively take control of the
routing of New Zealand telephone numbers over IP?

--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash

ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
Joe Abley
2009-01-07 09:32:09 UTC
Permalink
On 2009-01-06, at 22:26, Michael Sutton wrote:

> Issues concerning +1 delegation:
>
> Previous emails suggested that the United States +1 delegation was
> lapsed as
> there was no demand - This is not the situation.

I certainly suggested no such thing, and I'm the last person you'll
find calling +1 "United States".

My point had nothing to do with the delegation or the demand for such;
my point was that the testbed registry for 1.e164.arpa never attracted
any data.

I think you'll also find nobody in this thread advocating that
4.6.e164.arpa should not be delegated. What you might see is (to my
eye) healthy scepticism about whether E.164 identifiers have any value
in the coming century beyond a mechanism to gateway into a legacy
communications network.

Given that enthusiasm for ENUM seems largely confined to those who
seek to make money from it or from those who chair working groups
about it, it seems possible that this kind of scepticism is widespread.


Joe
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...