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

hi!

>> [...]
>> 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...

well that's a question for the regulator then, isn't it. i don't want to 
nor see a reason why to mess with regulations. if a country decides to 
ban voip-gateways (although still i don't really know a good reason 
why), that's the country's decision and that decision has to be followed 
in that country. but i don't think this is a good reason to prevent 
everyone else from promoting voip.

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

probably. certainly this cannot be avoided for a long time (except 
locally by regulators), but also i'm not the one who demands that this 
has to be avoided.

>> 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...

right. actually in the proposal any assigned number (or assigned block) 
is a single entry right from the beginning. i just checked the text 
(3.2), and it's in fact not clearly stated. the idea was to enter every 
assignment as a new object into the whois-db at the time when assignment 
is done.
i also regard it as quite similar to a domain registry (and in other 
respects similar to an ip 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.

sure, just send them here if they don't run away fast enough ;)

>> 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?

the concept as such should work also without an 'assignment window'. but 
i think it's not a too bad idea, otherwise most-popular-vanity-number 
grabbing probably can not be prevented. also, depending on the policy, 
conservation might be identified as an issue.

kind regards,

	Chris Heinze