[enum-wg] repost: Proposal for non-geographic ENUM E.164 UPTS for the general public

Hi Chris,

Chris Heinze wrote:
>>> [currently large regional blocks are 
>>> reallocated by voip gateway providers to voip-users. so a voip-user 
>>> from e.g. dresden can have a number from e.g. duesseldorf, hamburg, 
>>> berlin, munich - or all of them.]
>>
>> [of some major concern to the regulator]
> 
> yes - actually (except for some endusers that consider it fun to have 
> numbers from different cities) i know of nobody who is really happy with 
> this solution,

you just have found the first person then. :-) My crowd back in Berlin 
happily rings me up with my Berlin VoIP number whereever I am.

> [...] it's hardly optimal to dial 
> +4932.... or any other cc-number to reach a user who is currently in 
> helsinki and might be in hongkong tomorrow...

I guess, for Germans callers it would :-) - in particular if any +4932 
call from the PSTN is deemed to be local and dumped onto the Internet ASAP.

And if I am able to get a grip on other CCs with similar ranges and 
rules, I am able to satisfy the needs of my counterparts there, too.

> as an international prefix could be seen as a public resource that has 
> to be available in a non-discriminating way, i beleive personal numbers 
> assigned to the endusers are again the most straightforward solution.

Indeed, you are right - at the end of the day, what I outlined above 
might be only a mid-term solution. Then again, you also want to be 
reachable from the PSTN - and as Richard Stastny said, deploying a new 
CC in the global PSTN seems to be really a drag...

> hm, right, 100% ack.
> but maybe that's just my bad explanation in the proposal, the idea was 
> to allocate blocks to providers to keep administrative work at the rir 
> level low, while every single number stays portable by using the 
> hierarchical means provided by whois: if a single number out of the 
> provider-allocated block is ported, the maintainer is changed to the new 
> provider as well as the enum-delegation (see collection of 'most 
> specific' nameserver info in the proposal).
> this way every number would stay portable.

So who then would be in charge of the database of ported numbers: the 
RIR? Many DBs, one maintained by each ITSP that got the block allocated 
originally?

>> [ensure portability/assigning a number directly to the user]
> 
> from my view this would be the most charming solution - but creating a 
> lot of work on the rir level is not an option, and currently i don't 
> know of a practical solution to that... hmm...

On the "handling the workload" issue it might be helpful to get an 
opinion from an/the RIR[s] itself/themselves, I guess.

> right... hmm... maybe without allocation of blocks to providers, but 
> allocation of a 'number of (not specific phone-)numbers' could work. 
> actually that would already be a kind of AW-solution. hm. sounds 
> realistic to me, while work at the rir-level were still rather low.

I am afarid I lost you here - what do you mean with a 'number of (not 
specific phone-)numbers'? Even the comparision with an AW didn't help...

Cheers,

	-C.