[enum-wg] "production status"?

Andrzej,

what is strange in Poland is
> Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number
> (0.0.0.1.<cc>.e164.arpa) for his customer C.

If customer C registered the "1000" number by himself,
as everywhere else,
the whole problem would not exist.

Richard


Richard Stastny
OeFEG
tel:+43 664 420 4100
enum:+43 780 203 211
callto://fordprefect
http://voipandenum.blogspot.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of
> Andrzej Bartosiewicz
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:16 AM
> To: Adrian Georgescu
> Cc: enum-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [enum-wg] "production status"?
> 
> Let's imaging the following situation.
> 
> Operator A has registerd in the central database numbering block 1XXX
> (1.<cc>.e164.arpa.)
> 
> Operator A has registerd in DNS "1000" E164 number
> (0.0.0.1.<cc>.e164.arpa) for his customer C.
> 
> NP is implemented and customer C is porting his number from Operator A
to
> Operator B
> 
> Finally, customer C is the B's customer for "1000" number and the same
> time the (lifelong) Registrar of ENUM number "1000" is... Operator A.
> 
> Customer C MUST always contact Operator A.
> 
> What happens in case of A bankruptcy?
> 
> It sounds strange.
> 
> Andrzej.
> 
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
> 
> > Andrzej,
> >
> > I cannot imagine how ENUM registrations could be "canceled", as the
> > numbers are delegated based on current administrative policies in
> > place.
> > Should NP be implemented, ENUM can be an enabler. With fixed
numbering
> > plans like in .ro delegation of each individual number is possible.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote:
> >
> > > As I understand ENUM Registry MUST canclel/terminate all the ENUM
> > > registration of the numbering blocks after NP implementation in
> > > Romania.
> > >
> > > Additionally Registry should "transfer" all the ENUM domain names
from
> > > the
> > > Registrars (Operators) to the Registry. Am I right?
> > >
> > > Andrzej
> > >
> > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
> > >
> > >> Number portability is not possible at this moment, there are
plans
> for
> > >> the near future.
> > >>
> > >> On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Andrzej Bartosiewicz wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Adrian,
> > >>>
> > >>>> In Romania operators may apply for entering number ranges that
are
> > >>>> assigned by the telecom regulator under +40 also into
e164.arpa.
> > >>>> name
> > >>>> space. The operator than assigns the numbers to its customers
based
> > >>>> on
> > >>>> internal procedures.
> > >>>
> > >>> It lookas like that Number Portability can not be implemented in
> > >>> Romania.
> > >>> What happens if the number range is assigned to operator and
after
> > >>> that
> > >>> some numbers are ported to anoter operator.
> > >>>
> > >>> Andrzej.
> > >>
> >