[Dundi] Looking Glass
Jason p
voiceoveripguru at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 09:06:04 CDT 2004
any plans to put a password on the maps or some type of verification
so that only members can see the data ? the maps make i easy to look
at the network and see where you fit our could fit into the network.
Jason
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:38:43 +0200, Stastny Richard
<richard.stastny at oefeg.at> wrote:
> >Mark:
> > When I made my talk about DUNDi at VON, I was approached
> > after my talk by
> > the CEO of Vonage who waited in line in order to tell me he
> > would *never*
> > use this system (or ENUM) or anything which allowed any ability for
> > someone to determine who his customers were, no matter how
> > circuitous (I
> > told him I could make a web site that would pay $2 for anyone
> > that was a
> > vonage customer but he didn't seem to consider that a likely one).
>
> DUNDi is playing in the same ballpark then _Carrier_ ENUM (to be
> precise: Carrier ENUM shared within a (trust) con-federation).
> So luckily the CEO from Vonage (as any provider) has no say
> if his customers opts-in into (_user_) ENUM. The basic question
> here is: will Vonage (and other already doomed bellhead PSTN-emulation
> _VoIP_ providers) offer their customers real VoIP by providing them with
>
> _dial_ URI aka public sip URIs. This also implies two things: anybody
> can call this sip address (this is equivalent that you can send an
> e-mail to every mailto: without your e-mail server having a bilateral
> peering agreement with the receiving e-mail server) and second:
> there will be NO termination charges.
>
> Public ENUM is just an optional add-on to give you the sip URI related
> to an E.164 number. If you would know the sip URI in the first place,
> you do not need ENUM. The basic question in ENUM is: Do you have a
> public
> sip URI? If not, you cannot use ENUM. Period.
>
> >Greg:
> >As for the CEO of Vonage, when BGP was first introduced certain people
> in
> >the industry freaked out over the same issues, but everyone got over it
>
> >eventually.
>
> Carrier ENUM and DUNDi allows you to peer the addresses of ingress
> gateways
> to your "network". Therefor you may have peering agreement and also you
> MAY have termination charges (if in the peering (or settlement)
> agreement)
>
> The drawback is that you have to annonce at least the number range you
> are serving or in case of a number range featuring NP every single
> number
> you serve. Most carriers (especially new entrants) do no like to annonce
> this for two reasons: 1. competiters may make a head count and find
> out (what they in most cases know anyhow) that there is a difference
> between reality and propaganda, and second that competititors
> (especially
> the evil incumbents may use the information for direct marketing. The
> reverse is easy for the new-entrants, because the just can make direct
> marketing to anybody, the chance to hit an own customer is minimal.
>
> So I can add to Greg: this is the reason why in many countries no
> centralized database exists for NP.
>
> On the other hand: if you want to peer on the Internet, there is finally
> no other way to use constructs like Carrier ENUM or DUNDi. The other
> alternative is to keep the PSTN up and running forever just as transit
> and interconnect facility even of no end-user are connected anymore.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Spencer [mailto:markster at digium.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:06 AM
> > To: Distributed Universal Number Discovery
> > Subject: RE: [Dundi] Looking Glass
> >
> >
> > This is an extremely slippery slope.
> >
> > The most important things DUNDi/e164 can do are to preserve
> > the integrity
> > and the privacy of the members participating. When you
> > publically make
> > available information outside of the trust group, you are
> > weakening the
> > privacy of the members within the group.
> >
> > The question is whether the existing language provides sufficient
> > protections.
> >
> > Section 2f was explicitly created to prevent the dissimination of the
> > routes or any portion of them outside the trust group.
> >
> > If the language in 2f is not strong enough to make that
> > protection, we may
> > need to revise it and publish a new revision of the GPA, but
> > upgrading the
> > GPA is not an easy task -- everyone would have to re-execute the new
> > version, effective a common time, at which point people who were only
> > running the old one would have to be cut off. Obviously this
> > is a fairly
> > impractical scenario -- but much more practical right now
> > since we have
> > only a few tens of nodes.
> >
> > When I made my talk about DUNDi at VON, I was approached
> > after my talk by
> > the CEO of Vonage who waited in line in order to tell me he
> > would *never*
> > use this system (or ENUM) or anything which allowed any ability for
> > someone to determine who his customers were, no matter how
> > circuitous (I
> > told him I could make a web site that would pay $2 for anyone
> > that was a
> > vonage customer but he didn't seem to consider that a likely one).
> >
> > DUNDi/e164 has both a technical and non-technical portion.
> > There is a lot
> > of debate about the scalability of either. The scalability of the
> > technical side is rather easily measurable, and there is a path to
> > improving it (I should have the push stuff done before too
> > long). The
> > non-technical piece can only be scalable if it is enforced
> > 100%, right
> > from the start, and any infraction is immediately attacked.
> > If violations
> > become widespread, then truly, it will become worthless at large.
> >
> > I cannot stress the importance of maintaining accuracy and privacy of
> > these numbers within the Trust Group and no amount of fancy
> > diagnostic
> > tools are worth that risk.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Brian West wrote:
> >
> > > Ok I think the new LG is more of what we need. It doesn't
> > display any
> > > identifying info about the route and I think that still follows the
> > > spirit of the GPA... What about you?
> > >
> > > bkw
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: dundi-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:dundi-
> > >> bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Scott Wolf
> > >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:34 PM
> > >> To: Distributed Universal Number Discovery
> > >> Subject: Re: [Dundi] Looking Glass
> > >>
> > >> I am now filtering out all user/pass's, EID's, and IP/Host's.
> > >> Basically just if a route exists, and cache info. EID
> > lookup is also
> > >> disabled.
> > >>
> > >> Would a click through of the GPA be enough to allow full access?
> > >>
> > >> Scott Wolf
> > >> wolfson
> > >>
> > >> Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yes/No is a bit too little. You might want to know, if
> > a old entry
> > >> is being
> > >> pushed or not. So masking the output to a certain
> > degree probably is
> > >> the best
> > >> solution.
> > >>
> > >> /Marlow
> > >>
> > >> Quoting Brian West <brian at bkw.org> <mailto:brian at bkw.org> :
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think the tool is acceptable if any info
> > about where or
> > > who
> > >> the number
> > >> goes is masked. I think the best response is
> > to say YES we see it
> > >> or NO we
> > >> don't and the weight of the result if any. It will also
> > > help
> > >> try to see if
> > >> the rest of the network sees you from X or Y
> > perspective. What does
> > >> everyone else think?
> > >>
> > >> bkw
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: dundi-bounces at lists.digium.com
> > [mailto:dundi-
> > >> bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
> > Mark Spencer
> > >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:43 PM
> > >> To: dundi at lists.digium.com
> > >> Subject: Re: [Dundi] Looking Glass
> > >>
> > >> The DUNDi Looking Glass, while neat, is also in
> > >> violation of GPA section
> > >> 2f:
> > >>
> > >> (f) A Participant may not disclose
> > any specific Route,
> > >> Service or
> > >> Participant contact
> > information obtained
> > > from
> > >> the Peering System
> > >> to any party outside of the
> > Peering System except as a
> > >> by-product of facilitating
> > communication in
> > >> accordance with
> > >> section 2e (e.g., phone books or other
> > >> databases may not be
> > >> published, but the Internet
> > addresses of
> > > the
> > >> Egress Gateway or
> > >> Service does not need to be
> > obfuscated.)
> > >>
> > >> I would like to solicit feedback from
> > the list about
> > > how
> > >> this tool might
> > >> be more appropriately used.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Dundi mailing list
> > >> Dundi at lists.digium.com
> > >> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/dundi
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dundi mailing list
> > > Dundi at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/dundi
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dundi mailing list
> > Dundi at lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/dundi
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Dundi mailing list
> Dundi at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/dundi
>
More information about the Dundi
mailing list