AW: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached with ENUM (questionable)

Hi there,

just for clarification I would like to note that there are no NAPTRs for
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa.
but there are for xyz.9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa.
;-)

Best Regards,

Juergen


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag
von Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 11:54
An: Christoph Künkel
Cc: Henry Sinnreich; Adrian Georgescu; Carsten Schiefner;
enum-wg at ripe.net; Stastny Richard
Betreff: Re: AW: [enum-wg] Kapsch CarrierCom first company to be reached
with ENUM (questionable)

Hi Folks,
  inline
best regards,
   Lawrence

On 8 Oct 2004, at 08:40, Christoph Künkel wrote:
> strange.
<extract of SIP RFC elided>
> no mention of ENUM.
typo - c/2/7/
> also, I work in a company that has ENUM enabled.  You can call me (+49

> 7031 73009) via ENUM from the internet and I certainly have no SIP 
> URI.  Same goes true for a number of our customers I know of, which 
> are using ENUM in their telephony production environment.
Well... you have a pair of TXT record in there but no NAPTRs, AFAICS:
; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. NAPTR
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 43513
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> 9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. ANY
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
  ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 62091
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 4

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. IN    ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN  TXT     "for the purpose of 
ENUM-Trial DE"
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN  TXT     "innovaphone AG 
administrator at innovaphone.com"
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN  SOA     
ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. wjontofs.berkom.de. 2004083001 182800 600 
3600 120
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN  NS      
ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de.
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN  NS      
ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN  NS      
ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de.
9.0.0.3.7.1.3.0.7.9.4.e164.arpa. 90 IN  NS      
ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 3600 IN     A       141.39.29.162
ns.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 2624 IN     AAAA    2001:7a0:100:111::162
ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 3600 IN    A       141.39.66.111
ns2.dnsnglab.ipv6.berkom.de. 2624 IN    AAAA    2001:7a0:100:101::155

> Do I miss something or is this thread falsely mixing up only loosely 
> coupled issues?
>
Yes, you do miss something.
> Regards, Christoph
>
>
Earlier, I said:
> Hi Guys,
>    quick point here - ENUM is according to RFC3261.
> It's AKA "public" ENUM. It *is* available on the Internet.
> Anything else is "ENUM-like".
>
>>> So Henry says (and I agree), if you do not have a SIP URI, you do
not
>>> have VoIP.
>