Re: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF
"Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> Wed, 24 May 2006 22:43 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj251-000143-Lw; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:43:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj251-00013y-4O for speermint@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:43:51 -0400
Received: from mail.oefeg.at ([62.47.121.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj24y-0006lu-0K for speermint@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:43:51 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 00:44:26 +0200
Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D462C4A74@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF
Thread-Index: AcZ55c9pook8AV07QCuSGZUVJZHNwAAALQwwAAMtGwAAALabEAAtwXjAAPK/xLAAAMWBMAAFEnSQAADsacAAAXIwMAAAWSswAAMILuAAATumxgAG4BNwABEZoVAADQ2DIAAC1z/9AAGrFeAACZ2pfQABju7wAAFXgQM=
From: Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at>
To: timothy.dwight@verizon.com, timothy.dwight@verizon.com, timothy.dwight@verizon.com, "Michael Hammer (mhammer)" <mhammer@cisco.com>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, "Francois D. Menard" <fmenard@xittelecom.com>, "Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]" <Sohel.Q.Khan@sprint.com>, David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>, speermint@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bc102ac530ba955ef81f1f75b8bebe44
Cc:
X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group <speermint.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>, <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/speermint>
List-Post: <mailto:speermint@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>, <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: speermint-bounces@ietf.org
Tim, another short reply: b) you can provide a LRN, with the pstn Enumservice and if you can explain to me how a plain sip-proxy accesses e.g the OpenSER accesses the LERG and the LNP database especially from e.g. Austria, fine With Infrastructure ENUM this is a no-brainer Richard ________________________________ Von: Tim Dwight [mailto:timothy.dwight@verizon.com] Gesendet: Do 25.05.2006 00:19 An: Stastny Richard; timothy.dwight@verizon.com; timothy.dwight@verizon.com; 'Michael Hammer (mhammer)'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Francois D. Menard'; 'Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]'; 'David Meyer'; speermint@ietf.org Betreff: RE: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF Richard, Yes I know I was mixing data and mechanism-to-access-data. Still I believe the major point to be correct. In many parts of the world there are already mechanisms (associated with Local Number Portability) to determine ownership of an E.164 number, hence use of ENUM for this purpose alone, will be unnecessary. To be clear, I believe that providing access via Infrastructure ENUM to LNP information may be very helpful; but only if Infrastructure ENUM provides more than just this. If an Infrastructure ENUM query can combine (a) determination of the entity providing service to the destination, (b) determination of the corresponding LRN, if one exists, and (c) mapping of the routable number (either the number originally indicated, or the LRN) to a Layer 5 "point of ingress" specified by the entity providing service to the destination; then Infrastructure ENUM is quite a handy mechanism. If all it does is (a) then I don't need it. But in the end this is neither here nor there. I am not wedded to any specific technology, I just need workable solutions to real business problems. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 4:38 PM To: timothy.dwight@verizon.com; timothy.dwight@verizon.com; Michael Hammer (mhammer); Brian Rosen; Francois D. Menard; Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]; David Meyer; speermint@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF Tim, thanx for your reply, you are raising some important issues. Since it is already midnight here, I will reply to it in detail tomorrow I am also working on a more detailed analysis and a draft which will require even some more time. Just a quick one: >In some parts of the world the function provided by "option 2" usage of >Infrastructure ENUM could be achieved in other ways (e.g., the LERG and >NPDB in North America) so in those cases Infrastructure ENUM might be a >superfluous concept; but if that's the right technical answer so be it. Yes and no ;-) You are mixing up here the Registry and the ENUM DNS. The Registry is the LERG and NPDB (or is derived from), the ENUM DNS is the equivalent on IP of the SCP in the PSTN where the date is downloaded to. Richard ________________________________ Von: Tim Dwight [mailto:timothy.dwight@verizon.com] Gesendet: Mi 24.05.2006 23:00 An: Stastny Richard; timothy.dwight@verizon.com; 'Michael Hammer (mhammer)'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Francois D. Menard'; 'Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]'; 'David Meyer'; speermint@ietf.org Betreff: RE: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF Richard, Thank you for the clarification. I understand the distinction you are making. My objective is to be able to translate a destination identifier (E.164 number of alphanumeric AoR) into the address of a Layer 5 entity designated by the organization providing service to the called party. With infrastructure/carrier ENUM I could do this (as described in your Option 1), but because ENUM is specific to E.164 numbers it would only work for E.164 -formatted destination identifiers. In pictures, your Option 2 seems to me to imply the following: +----------------+ +----------+ E.164 | infrastructure | serving | identify | network ingress destination -->| ENUM |---> carrier --->| ingress |---> point specified identifier | (option 2) | identity | point | by serving carrier +----------------+ ^ +----------+ | +----------------+ | non-E.164 | map domain in | | Destination -->| URI to carrier |--------+ Identifier | identity | +----------------+ In some parts of the world the function provided by "option 2" usage of Infrastructure ENUM could be achieved in other ways (e.g., the LERG and NPDB in North America) so in those cases Infrastructure ENUM might be a superfluous concept; but if that's the right technical answer so be it. The "identify ingress point" function would need to be defined. I would like it to consider the specified destination (in addition to the carrier providing service to that destination); and I would like the procedures to be such that the serving carrier controls (in a reasonably dynamic way) the point at which traffic destined to a particular destination, enters his network. If those requirements can be met, I think this approach is workable. Its biggest drawback is that it precludes a solution ("option 1" usage of Infrastructure ENUM) that is sufficient for the majority of today's needs. It optimizes for a problem that will exist in the future at the expense of solving problems that exist today. I realize that solving today's problems may not be SPEERMINT's focus, or (arguably) even within its charter, but I would hate to see recommendations from SPEERMINT preclude or significantly delay solving them. Suppose we did something like this: +----------+ [pseudo +----------------+ non-E.164 | identify | or real] | infrastructure | network ingress destination -->| "pseudo" |---> E.164 --->| ENUM |---> point specified identifier | E.164 | number | (option 1) | by serving carrier +----------+ +----------------+ We could let the ENUM working group define Infrastructure ENUM as described in your Option 1 (which is as you know already commercially available from a few sources) and SPEERMINT could define the "identify pseudo E.164" function that in my diagram feeds into it. This function might be as simple as mapping the domain part of the URI to an E.164 number uniquely associated with the network providing service to the specified destination. Unless this is a lot harder than it seems, this shouldn't keep us busy too long :-) Tim -----Original Message----- From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:16 AM To: timothy.dwight@verizon.com; Michael Hammer (mhammer); Brian Rosen; Francois D. Menard; Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]; David Meyer; speermint@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF Tim, >> ... the basic idea of Infrastructure ENUM (which will be used for >> service providers is to provide a domain name in a SIP URI = a >> service provider ID >(SPID) >At the risk of asking an off-topic question (realizing that ENUM is not >within scope for SPEERMINT), can I ask where the idea that >Infrastructure ENUM queries return SPIDs, comes from? It is my intent >to provide a point of interconnection to be used by the requesting >entity to hand to me a call to the specified number. I do not intend >that the only meaningful part of the URI returned from the ENUM query, >be the domain name. thank you for raising this important point. I tried to raise this some time ago, but got no clear answer Currently there exist two lines of thought about the usage of Infrastructure (and also Carrier ENUM in private trees) 1. Put in ENUM the ingress point(s) e.g. sip:+43xxxx@sbc4711.provider.net 2. Put in ENUM the AoR only: e.g. sip:+43xxx@provider.net (provider.net is what I meant with SPID) Most currently prefer option 1, especially in private ENUM trees. IMHO this is the wrong approach: There should be a clear separation (and it is in the charter) between ENUM and SPEERMINT SPEERMINT peering MUST be able to work standalone and without ENUM. Option 1 assumes also that the user is entering ALWAYS an E.164 number as identifier. But what if he is entering an AoR? SPEEMINT peering MUST be able to resolve this too so you need to find the ingress point independant of ENUM e.g. via RFC3263. If this MUST be possible, why not enter in (any) ENUM just the AoR, if you must be able to resolve the AoR anyway? Otherwise you need to manage two mappings separate 1. the E.164 to ingress point 2. the AoR mapping to ingress point this is not a good idea This is the reason why I would prefer to enter in ENUM AoRs only the user part in ENUM is always the E.164 number (for privacy reasons) the domain part is the SPID, which is mapped later to find the ingress point the calling user may then also use an alis AoR such as sip:name@provider.net regards Richard ________________________________ Von: Tim Dwight [mailto:timothy.dwight@verizon.com] Gesendet: Mi 24.05.2006 16:46 An: Stastny Richard; 'Michael Hammer (mhammer)'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Francois D. Menard'; 'Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]'; 'David Meyer'; speermint@ietf.org Betreff: RE: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF Stastny, Richard said: > ... the basic idea of Infrastructure ENUM (which will be used for > service providers is to provide a domain name in a SIP URI = a service > provider ID (SPID) At the risk of asking an off-topic question (realizing that ENUM is not within scope for SPEERMINT), can I ask where the idea that Infrastructure ENUM queries return SPIDs, comes from? It is my intent to provide a point of interconnection to be used by the requesting entity to hand to me a call to the specified number. I do not intend that the only meaningful part of the URI returned from the ENUM query, be the domain name. tim _______________________________________________ Speermint mailing list Speermint@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint _______________________________________________ Speermint mailing list Speermint@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint _______________________________________________ Speermint mailing list Speermint@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
- [Speermint] SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF -… Stastny Richard
- [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - … Michael Hammer (mhammer)
- [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - … Stastny Richard
- [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - … Michael Hammer (mhammer)
- Re: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architectur… Stastny Richard
- Re: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architectur… Stastny Richard
- Re: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architectur… Stastny Richard
- RE: [Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architectur… Michael Hammer (mhammer)