[#XWM-610908]: Re: [enum-wg] ENUM Adoption - Does a business case matter?

On 22 Jul 2009, at 11:46, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

> Hello Christian,
>
> Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>>> Coudl you please elaborate a bit here? Do you call for regulators  
>>> to make ENUM mandatory?
>> I am saying that when an E.164 is allocated (to an operator) by a  
>> regulator it should be entered into the ENUM tree even it simply  
>> returns the tel: uri for the number itself.
>
> I see: like the CRUE principle (http://www.ukec.co.uk/docs/CRUE.pdf)  
> deployed in the UK tree 4.4.e164.arpa - am I correct?
>
> Best regards,
>
> 	Carsten
>


It is an interesting question.

I think my answer is no, not really because CRUE is a proposal for a  
Carrier not Regulator controlled bulk ENUM entry. CRUE's scope is not  
for all numbers and it is dependent on whether a Carrier chooses to  
use it. (Well it would be if CRUE was operational). So it doesn't help  
a Regulator ensure its number resources can route over either IP or  
TDM networks seamlessly.

When this idea started out in the UKEG I recall it was discussed in  
terms of a way to help VoIP service providers gain new (and only new)  
local number ranges to route over IP and to them through TDM gateways.  
The original discussion in the UKEG revolved around this idea as a way  
to bootstrap use of ENUM. The aim was to encourage VoIP providers to  
setup services and applications that dip ENUM. That is to use  
numbering. CRUE is a much more ambitious extension of that idea. So  
much so that it is explicitly stated not to be for the purposes of  
bootstrapping the use of ENUM (VoIP and so forth).

CRUE quite quickly grew in scope to include any "carriers" and also  
most numbers already in circulation with the TDM / PSTN operators. I  
was not really convinced that carriers would be interested, having  
instigated some carrier ENUM projects including the 250 million number  
SuperRegistry at IntelePeer in the US. I was of the view that the  
Carriers need and ambitions differed to VoIP orientated or alternative  
telecoms service providers. So I felt CRUE was out of scope for me to  
involve myself more closely once it had moved on from the initial  
discussions. I am not saying it is a bad idea just that I can't really  
judge at this point whose business plan it fits. Although having said  
that I don't think it fits with the Regulatory one at least as it  
stands.

A Regulator would need to manage bulk entry somewhat differently to  
CRUE.


Christian