[Asterisk-Dev] DUNDi (Was: A crazy idea... Skype channelin Asterisk)

[Brandon Patterson]

I agree with Kevin. The issue of LNP becomes a problem when you have say
10,000
numbers and all of a sudden one gets transported off to another provider.
Then the fun
begins.

I want to break from the Telco portion for a second and comment on your
remark that
ENUM is a domain business. That for me is a problem as well. DNS is DNS ,
its not
the DOMAIN business. Domains are Domains, ENUM is ENUM. I noticed the .CA
people in Canada seem to have designs on ENUM as well. To me that is nothing
more
than a revenue issue. ENUM folks like e164.org have done excellent work but
many of
us are looking for something that operates a bit different. DUNDi looks like
a solution to
many problems plus, I don't need to be concerned about another ICANN like
creation
in my technical travels. Not that ENUM is ICANN - !

Brandon


> On 2004/10/20 21:10, "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at starnetworks.us> wrote:
> > Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> >
> > >My gut reaction is that this seems like an awful lot of new code just
> > >to do something that an open ENUM-like DB would do.  If the problem is
> > >that none of the current ENUM administrators will delegate, then
> > >*that* is the problem that needs fixing.  Creating a new protocol
> > >simply to get around the delegations problems is a bit over the top.
> >
> > But that is _not_ the entire problem, have you read the DUNDi
whitepaper?
> >
> > Here is a simple example where ENUM breaks: I am an ITSP, and I support
> > LNP. That means customers can bring numbers to my system. So, I get a
> > new customer, and they bring over +1-555-555-1212 to my service. Note
> > that I do not currently service _ANY_ other numbers in +1-555-555.
> >
> > How, and who, would delegate to me the control I would need to manage
> > the NAPTR record for this number? How many levels of delegation would
> > there be, and who would be those "registrars"? What if the +1-555-555
> > number block was originally assigned to the ILEC in my area, and they
> > are also the registrar for all of +1-555-555 in e164.arpa? I then have
> > to convince them to let me manage this _ONE_ record in the zone that
> > they otherwise control?
>
> Austria will start production ENUM services in a few weeks and the
> setup here will not replicate the number-block assignment hierarchy
> in the ENUM domain. E.g. while +43664 is owned by Mobilkom Austria,
> they will not get a delegation for 4.6.6.3.4.e164.arpa.
>
> Delegations from 3.4.e164.arpa will always be to full numbers.
> (The only exception could be DDI blocks, but they are handled completely
> different that in the US, as we have an open number plan under +43 where
> the lenght of a number can vary.)
>
> Thus you never have to go to a competitor to get an ENUM domain for
> a single number. You always go to enum.at which will run 3.4.e164.arpa.
>
> > Yes, this the same problem that exists for LNP on the PSTN in the United
> > States, but that is solved by having a single, government-authorized
> > authority to manage the database (although it's still a major amount of
> > work to port numbers, and it takes forever). What DUNDi wants to avoid
> > is that situation occurring again in E.164/VOIP space.
>
> Basically, here in .at the backend DB driving the ENUM domain for
> Austria fulfills the same role as your government-authorized database.
> (Well, enum.at *does* have a contract with the regulatory authority
> to run this service, so the comparison is quite apt.)
>
> We've put in a lot of thought into the design of the actual process
> of ENUM delegation. We hope that we found a model which is a lot more
> efficient than the processes used for LNP or MNP.
>
> > DNS does not lend itself to lots of little delegations (for individual
> > NAPTR records), and it doesn't have any reasonable way to be extended to
> > support that. It's a pain the in rear just to get a delegation to handle
> > the reverse DNS for a /27 (or smaller) IP address block, just imagine
> > what it would be like for a _single record_, and when the authority
> > controlling the upper level zone is a direct competitor of yours.
>
> As others mentioned before: that's not an issue of the DNS protocol, but
> one of the current DNS server implemenations. If you drive you
> DNS servers from a suitable DB (e.g. have a look at PowerDNS) then
> you don't have a problems dealing with a huge number of zones
> on a nameserver.
>
> ENUM is domain business. As most ISPs and webhosters have shown: the
> problem of getting and handling a domain per customer is solvable.
>
> /ol
> -- 
> < Otmar Lendl (lendl at nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev