Saturday, May 20, 2006

The ENUM Babuschkas and US Provider ENUM 

At my short introduction moderating the "ENUM Now" panel I mentioned the ENUM Babuschkas: User - Infrastructure - Private - Carrier - Operator - Enterprise - Federation ENUM (Note: I will report on this panel as soon as I have all slides available)

The US ENUM LLC was not happy with these naming options and decided to introduce a new term: Provider ENUM. But they also allow you to call it "Carrier" or "Infrastructure" ENUM ;-)

So the group reacted quite fast on the restriction imposed not to do Infrastructure ENUM in and simply implements the trial in a separate tree - in this case ""

Congratulations to all involved here!

In a press release from May 16, 2006 the Country Code 1 ENUM LLC (LLC) announced the launch of a second ENUM technology trial that will focus on service provider interconnection requirements:

The U.S. Provider ENUM trial will be based on the "Framework Document for a U.S. Provider ENUM Trial" . The trial of Provider ENUM (sometimes referred to as "Carrier" or "Infrastructure" ENUM) is expected to be conducted over a four-month period beginning in July. This trial will be carried out in parallel with the current End-User ENUM trial and will use a different domain name and separate numbering resources. As with the End-User ENUM trial, no commercial end-users will be involved in the Provider ENUM trial.

TSPs with assigned numbering resources that seek to exchange end-user traffic with other TSPs on an IP basis are encouraged to participate.

The results of the trial will form the basis of requirements for a commercial implementation to assist U.S. service providers. The CC1 ENUM LLC plans are consistent with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ENUM Working Group efforts to progress a global solution for Provider ENUM. The proposed U.S. implementation, targeted for 2007, should be easily transitioned to the global solution when it becomes available.

I like the last paragraph, because it shows a way forward and is not incompatible with the now envisaged future developments in IETF ENUM WG.

I am sceptical about another statement in the framework document

In addition to the basic trial as outlined below, the trial implementation will provide a platform that may be used to test other architectural alternatives and capabilities, which may include:
  1. Non-terminal NAPTR records
  2. Carrier (Provider) domain branch under
  3. The provision of NAPTR records in Tier 1
  4. Linkage with other, non-NANP Provider ENUM trials
  5. Selective Control of Resolution/Call Admission
  6. Hiding the “root” of the Provider ENUM tree (i.e., from everyone but “authorized” service providers (i.e., trial participants).
With the exception of 2. and 4., I see some problems, but of course everybody is allowed to trial and play around.

2. and 4 allow to do "Linkage with other non-US trials" as pointed out also in section 7.3.2 of the framework, but please not with a DNAME (this would not work with, but by using the EBL ressource record as described in draft-lendl-enum-branch-location-record. Provided they are allowed to put this record into the sacrosanct

In this section there seems also to be a slight misunderstanding where belongs too: as defined in draft-ietf-enum-nfrastructure does NOT belong to ETSI.

Anyway, once again, well done!

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?