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

Hi, Chris.

Chris Heinze wrote:
> [...]
> even if the telco doesn't have an own ip gateway, buying such a service 
> from a different telco would be another simple option.

That's pretty much an European view. What about countries where there is 
only the incumbent around? Why (no competition!) should they dump it 
onto the net ASAP (and loose revenue) instead of making it a long 
distance/intercont call? If they route the call at all...

I believe even after a full introduction of +878 we will have those two 
types of VoIP numbers around for quite a while.

> no, the idea is to use the whois-db. with allocated blocks these blocks 
> would be distributed over the different RIRs' whois-dbs. porting a 
> number would mean a change of the whois-db entry (by the current admin 
> i.e. holder of the maintainer-object of the respective number), 
> replacing the maintainer-object and delegation data of that entry.
> 
> with assignments of single numbers without prior allocation, this is 
> different, either some reasonable way of distributing these single 
> assignments over the RIRs' whois-dbs must be found or a single whois-db 
> had to be used. this also might affect the mechanism to generate 
> delegations.
> 
> only the whois-db(s) would be necessary to hold the authoritative data 
> regarding number assignments.

Maybe you lost me here again: wouldn't that mean that over time, when 
people continue to port their numbers as they like, you'll end up with 
an entry per number? Then you should consider having such an 
implementation already from the very begining. And you have something 
that is pretty similar to a [domain] name registry...

>> On the "handling the workload" issue it might be helpful to get an 
>> opinion from an/the RIR[s] itself/themselves, I guess.
> 
> sure, that's also mentioned in the proposal. i guess you know who could 
> be the right person with insight and ideas for procedures at the RIRs, 
> or at least at RIPE? :)

That indeed could be the case, yes. ;-) However, I will certainly 
refrain from pointing folks out here.

> i mean an amount of numbers. say, a provider has the possibility to 
> enter 1000 numbers (no matter which ones) before an application for the 
> next e.g. 1000 numbers is necessary.
> i.e. still keeping an 'AW' approach while not allocating specific blocks.

And why would this be useful? The 'AW' approach IMHO originates from the 
demand to have some greater flexibility on the LIR's side when doing 
assignments - while still keeping the idea of conservation.

Question is: is there a more or less identical need for this type of 
conservation for UPT numbers, too? Or isn't it more like a one-off? At 
the end of the day it's "personal" - apart from some exceptions here and 
there: why would people liek to have more than one?

Cheers,

	-C.