[enum-wg] [tf-msp] Re: [discussion] Re: Global Virtual Numbering

Thanks James,

 

You’ve given this so much time and thought, thanks.

I’ll keep my mouth shut on this one (apart from our below the radar
discussions). It’s up to some good engineers to chime in if they’re
interested in this technical forum now.

 

Just one report of interest. The interoperability is happening.
http://searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/news/2240185144/Lync-Skype
-integration-helps-quench-user-demand-IT-concerns

Not sure whether NRENs have any part to play in it.

Regards, si

 

From: James Sankar [mailto:James.Sankar at aarnet.edu.au] 
Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 1:08 PM
To: Simon Fenton-Jones; 'Rui Ribeiro'; 'Victor Reijs (work)'; 'Alex Galhano
Robertson'; 'Peter Szegedi'
Cc: discussion at nrenum.net; tf-media-prep1 at terena.org; enum-wg at ripe.net;
'Juan Quemada'; Ben Fineman; tf-msp at terena.org
Subject: [tf-msp] Re: [discussion] Re: Global Virtual Numbering

 

Dear Simon, All

 

Lets try and unpack this a bit.

 

RIPE is responsible for issuing IP addresses, IP addresses are designed to
enable connected devices to communicate using IP packets between switches
and routers to reach from the sender to the intended receiver, this is an
underlying transport mechanism for all data to be transmitted and in ways
that we can reach that destination or by alternate means should the initial
route have a link fail or congestion - it was designed in a way to maintain
baseline communications in the event of a network failure or war way back
when.

 

Now as humans we are not very good at remembering numbers, as such DNS
allowed for domain names www.domain.com to map to IP addresses so that you
could through a Domain Name Server (DNS) type the more memorable name which
would map to the correct IP address which would then enable requests or data
to be sent there.  This then allowed for user at domain.name for individual
messaging (email) though I am a little young to know if the order of things
was this way (DNS then email).

 

So now we can find websites and send messages, hey why not collaborate in
real time and not just read static webpages and send email?  Along came the
likes of voice and video over the Internet, but not everyone had access and
we relied on phones from traditional telecommunications providers over the
PSTN at a $ per minute charging regime.  With the growing IP/Data network
reach and improvements in IP reliability and quality of service, receiving
reliable communications in real time became a reality but what should we use
to make that call?  Surely we should have a system that can take advantage
of free calls where we can have IP connectivity and failing that some way to
still have the call go over the PSTN network if its not connected to the IP
network or there are issues on the IP network such as congestion, jitter or
latency that would not support such calls.  Hence the birth of the IP-PBX
(telecommunication industry solution) and the birth of VoIP and Video over
IP (Internet industry).  These have pretty much converged with the majority
of customers moving away from PABX to IP Telephony and Video.  So we have
H.323 which uses a hierarchy of gatekeepers to route telephone numbers to
destinations for VoIP/Video calling in the same way I described earlier to
some extent for IP numbers in the IP world, and more recently we have SIP
which takes the more memorable form of an email address using DNS (mentioned
earlier) to route calls over a mapped IP addressed to make calls that way
too.  Now the formats present issues from a usability view, its easier to
dial a phone number on your phone or mobile and probably easier to type a
SIP address on a soft VoIP/Video client on a laptop and maybe easiest to use
an IP address for a room enabled video end point but we need flexibility
here to cater for all, hence the binding of ENUM to allow all three modes to
operate so you should not have to care which way you want to dial your call.
All the underlying querying and routing typically happens using
Infrastructure ENUM which maintains large lists of numbers that can be
routed to their destinations which may like H.323 follow a hierarchy of ENUM
like resolvers within a root tree format or from direct DNS based queries
(are you still with me here?).

 

So what I am trying to explain here is how our forms of communications have
changed depending on the nature of the communication and the application
available.  I am not going to even attempt to get into the latest social
media like forms than to say these are like Skype and tend to be islands,
you need to be part of the cohort by registering and then you can go and
seek out your friends or contacts and connect with them to establish
application layer like communities to collaborate with in a rich media way.


 

Now you can see that we have many layers built up over time, luckily we've
not seen any layers giving way, at best we see some telecommunications
carriers complain that they have to pay for all the physical infrastructure
whilst Facebook, Skype, twitter, snap chat and others ride "over the top" to
skim the revenues largely through advertising and premium services and the
handset phablet makers make a nice profit from both the infrastructure and
the applications and content too.

 

So my understanding of these discussions and attempts to bring folks
together cross domain are that there may be a concern that the Internet is
not as organised or indexed based searchable as we would like it to be to
find people and know it really is them and not an impersonator, to
communicate in easy and various ways and to share and find content easily to
empower true research and education leaps beyond traditional serendipity.
Having such a system and standards may also allow for metrics on the value
and effectiveness of content and services in use which has led to growth in
business analytics and intelligence.  

 

But who would and should set standards and would that stifle creativity?
We've seen time and again that if there is one thing for sure, the online
world we operate in will find a smarter, better or simply a work around to
anything.  See Data Warehousing for Corporate Data, great way to organise
but with the growth of sources and formats of data its not agile and is
expensive and has led to Hadoop and fluid number crunching analysis of
speech and video to text, social media streams and traditional data sources
mixed together to produce new insights and the rise of the data scientist.
I remain a little sceptical about that because to infer that we delivered a
much complex interwoven analysis of real time data to produce market
research that was then acted on and this produced a better business outcomes
is debatable.  In terms of the level of contribution to the outcome, could
it have happened solely as a result of the action and not the result and
interpretation that led to the action?  Ah maybe we are about to see the
rise of the social scientist and philosopher?

 

So as I wrap up here my final thoughts are where are we headed in this
internet connected world that serves up more data than ever in many new
ways, consuming content and automating decisions, well IMHO we need to
remain mindful of the knowledge is power element, this is where privacy and
personal data and regulation comes into play but we need to balance that
with the great creativity that can really change our world for the forces of
good too but how can we measure this being effective when its so easy to
fall into complexity and distraction?  So as I continue to wander in and out
of that detail lets ask ourselves the following

 

1. What is the problem we are trying to solve with global virtual numbering
and why?

2. Do we want to achieve an iterative organic way forward or something more
radical/game changing, why?

3. What would success translate to you, then work backwards to form a plan
maybe?

4. Is Indexing that important, please ask your librarian as I would love to
know and be corrected.

 

Have a great weekend folks and I hope this email provides some thought and
context around these discussions, if I've completely misinterpreted what has
been written in the thread and I sorry and follow that up by saying can you
please explain again some other way :-)

 

Best wishes

 

James

Director, AARNet Enterprise Services

 



  _____  

street address:  Binary Centre, Bldg1, Level 2, 3 Richardson Place, North
Ryde, NSW 2113

 

mobile: 0422 007 466   

email. james.sankar at aarnet.edu.au
<applewebdata://C0DA3D00-4567-47AF-85D5-E7B63F1302B4/james.sankar@aarnet.edu
.au>   

telephone: +61 2 9779 6938

website: http://www.aarnet.edu.au/services/enterprise-services-consulting


sip: 6938 at aarnet.edu.au

     

 

  _____  

important 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and the
rights of confidentiality in such information are not waived or lost by its
mistaken delivery to you.  Any dissemination, copying, use or disclosure of
the email and/or such files without the permission of AARNet, or the sender,
is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please
contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this transmission.

 

On 1/06/13 11:27 AM, "Simon Fenton-Jones" <simonfj at cols.com.au> wrote:

 

OK, Thanks Rui/peter/james/alex/victor/all,

 

I can see we're talking at cross purposes. The main thing, throughout all of

this enum stuff, is to encourage/force some interoperability between various

vendor's (let's call them) 'unified messaging' solutions. If that's not the

primary problem/challenge, could someone tell me what is?

 

In the first instance, we should have no interest in the technical

considerations. We should just look at the potential market and figure out

how, if we we're able to come up with an approach which pulled a market, any

private vendor would want to jump on it.

 

So let me illustrate the potential market. I.e. global groups. To be clear.

"Groups" tend to fall into these three divisions.

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups 

 

We can see that there have been many discussions about ENUM going on around

various domains for many years. E.g.

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/enum-wg/

So that's one indication of one global conversation, around some piece of

Research, which takes place, in different languages, in hundreds of domains,

at any one time. Even when these researchers get together at conferences,

their records are buried around various institutional and association web

sites. We all know that because, since the web was invented, we can all see

it. 

 

In the case of RIPE, we will discover what its institutional peers have in

common only by reading documents which are buried on some other (higher

order) domain. E.g. http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR_WTPF13_2.pdf

This is not an unusual situation. Everyone within some sphere of practice is

siloed, and often try and overcome their limitation by inventing another

institution, domain, & web site. And keeping the same discussions separate.

 

While this fragmentation of effort is now obvious, we have librarians who,

because the limit themselves to manhandling information/papers/journals (and

ignore Communications solutions as studiously as Communications technicians

ignore their needs) must pay publishers to aggregate journals on behalf of

global (peer) groups. 

 

Bringing it down to our present situation. Our BOF, at this terena domain,

have our enum discussion, which will have no record unless the elist has an

archive. So while James will suggest the OVCC guys have an interest in our

discussion, and I point to the Ripe enum group, and Peter I am sure will

have some interested parties inside Geant and Dante, there is simply nowhere

in domain in cyberspace we might all look to as a spot where other

communities with an interest in ENUM might reside, or have resided. The

demands for collaboration are obvious, and we all have ideas about real time

& asynchronous tools, But that's not important until we have some means of

finding our global peers, or peers who might have proceeded us in the same

inquiry. 

 

If you consider a solution to this problem, You'll be thinking (perhaps, in

terms of a new TLD, say) .research. Or using an existing domain like .edu.

Regardless, if you are a librarian it will be quite an obvious thing to

consider using an old classification scheme for the domain. What is, using

the existing way of classifying domain names called http://ddc.typepad.com/

is just as recognizable to a (dewey) librarian as www.025.431.com   

 

Now the only shortfall of this approach, using six numbers, is that it can

only define 999,999 virtual domains. But it's strength is that these become

not just pointers to a million transitional domains, but long term archives

in their own right. It's the policies, which are made for the use of virtual

rooms - interoperable, open source, open access, IPv6, etc - where the real

influence resides. A Global user group doesn't get issued one unless they

agree. 

 

So you might understand. I don't see the domain being issued by network, or

service, operators. They get issued by librarians. 

If we get that far, we'll need a prefix to be tacked on to a room's number,

so people can dial in to a room/conference, using the PSTN, without

incurring toll charges.

 

I hope that scopes the concept clearly.

All the best, si

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Rui Ribeiro [mailto:rui.ribeiro at fccn.pt] 

Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013 6:14 PM

To: 'Simon Fenton-Jones'; 'James Sankar'

Cc: discussion at nrenum.net; tf-media-prep1 at terena.org; 'Alex Galhano

Robertson'; 'Victor Reijs (work)'; 'Peter Szegedi'; enum-wg at ripe.net; 'Juan

Quemada'

Subject: RE: [discussion] Re: Global Virtual Numbering

 

Hi all,

 

{{

Something like this would be possible:

 

00 ### @ %%%%%%%%

00 ### @@ %%%%%%%

00 ### @@@ %%%%%%

00 ### @@@@ %%%%%

00 ### @@@@@ %%%%

 

Can't figure out why we'd need a network number though.

}}

 

I see two reasons upfront:

1. TERENA (or NRENum.net admins) don't have the structure to delegate

directly every block.

2. Organizations (NRENs, PCMG's*, ...)  will want to delegate some blocks on

their own or "transpose" their current numbering into the "global tree".

 

* PCMG's = entities like: Polycom, Cisco, Microsoft, Google, ...

 

Rui Ribeiro

Gestor Serviço Técnico de Vídeo

GEANT3 - SA3 - T4, eduCONF Leader

FCCN

 

Aviso de Confidencialidade/Disclaimer

Esta mensagem é exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatário, podendo conter

informação CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgação está expressamente vedada nos

termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem,

solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o

telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteúdo de imediato. 

This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain

CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received

by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and

delete it immediately

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: James Sankar [mailto:James.Sankar at aarnet.edu.au]

Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013 8:47 PM

To: Rui Ribeiro; 'Alex Galhano Robertson'

Cc: discussion at nrenum.net; tf-media-prep1 at terena.org; 'Victor Reijs (work)';

'Simon Fenton-Jones'; 'Peter Szegedi'

Subject: Re: [discussion] Re: Global Virtual Numbering

 

Dear All

 

I know that this issue is a common one in the commercial world and has the

added complexity of providing revenues to justify investment.  The Open

Visual Communications Consortium (OVCC) are working with carriers, managed

service providers, video vendors and supporting service providers to do just

that.  Given we seem to be redefining the objectives and goal it may make

sense to gain an insight into the issues and challenges that the OVCC face

so that we can take that effort and any learnings into account.  If this

would be of value I can organise OVCC leaders in the technical WG to meet

via video.

 

Best wishes

 

James Sankar

 

On 28/05/13 8:27 PM, "Rui Ribeiro" <rui.ribeiro at fccn.pt> wrote:

 

Hi Alex,

 

{{

I insist, we need to clearly define our objectives with this global 

numbering plan.

}}

 

IMHO, we need a way to allow addressing of IP voice and video terminals 

within the global numbering plan that is widely used, without the 

restrictions of the current numbering plan.

 

Restrictions = number associated with phone service.

 

{{

- We want to integrate videoconference and telephony services.

}}

 

True. 

 

{{

- We want a number-only global addressing scheme. No alfabetic characters.

}}

 

"In the future", URI dialing will be the way. I think that we all 

acknowledge that. But, for the moment, numbers are needed and the 

correct approach to "route" numbers into URIs is using ENUM. Yes, I 

would look for a "number-only global addressing scheme".

 

{{

- We want it to be "E.164 compilant", so we could call from any 

videophone or even any standard phone.

}}

 

There is a subtle thing that is mixed on this sentence. First, yes, we 

should be E.164 compliant, as this would promote integration with the 

current PSTN network and ease future integration. The other thing is to 

make a call... I would like, but it isn't a MUST today, to be able to 

dial from a

(pstn) phone to these "number-only global addressing scheme". "In the 

future", if we are an extension of e.164, then it would be easy for 

operators to route calls from their terminals/phones.

 

{{

- The translation to URI will be done by NRENum.net.

}}

 

Yes.

 

{{

0- Do we really need virtual numbers?

IMHO, we dont need it. At least, the majoroty of our NRENs does not 

need it.

But we want it because some countries (its universities and even NRENs) 

have dificulties to obtain real telephone numbers and make this real 

numbers the addres of its videoconference rooms.

}}

 

True. Look at the wider picture and think of other service providers 

that, already promote V&V services within their own numbering plan.

What if there was an global service that would accommodate these 

numbers/networks?

 

{{

As the answer is "we want it", let´s go on with other questions...

}}

 

Ok. ;-)

 

{{

1- What we should address?

A- people: our office deskphone or our personal videoconference 

software

B- groups: group of deskphones

C- video resources: MCU rooms, physical room "CODECs", Webconf rooms 

(if we can make it interoperate, etc)

D- all above

 

I think letter C is the correct one, because we already have one 

telephone number on our business cards. And it is easy to map those 

addresses on NRENum.net. It is already done for most of us, I think.

}}

 

Option "E" - All of the above and whatever comes up next! Numbers are 

just numbers... they will then be used for whatever purpose people 

wants to use them. We should not block their usage upfront by saying 

"only to be used by physical terminals". There should be rules about 

the quality of the records, but other than that, we should promote 

innovation of services.

 

{{

3- How should the scheme be?

A- Hierarchical and country code dependent?

B- Flat, non-hierarchical, independent on any existing coutry code

 

I think this is the key question to be answered!

It would be much easier if we choose leter A. It is already done for 

most of us.

But some people prefer the first choice: flat and CC independent.

}}

 

If A is chosen, there will be three problems:

1. (must!) exist country organization to take care of the service with 

all the problems associated with it: uptake, different rules, business 

case, politics, ...

2. bigger numbers (at least more 3 digits...) 3. doesn't solve supra 

national entities/networks.

 

I'm in favor of B, but based on the concept of networks. There should 

be a "world wide registry" for these networks and then there will be 

registrys to take part of those numbers. Of course NRENs could apply to 

take care of the CC code, if they want to, but this would open up the 

management outside country boundaries. For instance, on eduCONF, the 

numbering that we aim is supra national, where should it be placed on a 

CC code hierarchy. Where should, for instance, 

Polycom/Cisco/Microsoft/Google register costumers?

 

(please don't flame me on these reference to companies (PCMG). They are 

a big part of the videoconference ecosystem, preparing the model to 

allow them to enter is, IMHO, a wise decision)

 

{{

If we decide for option B, I would like to make some other questions 

about that IPv4 aproach I proposed a few days ago.

}}

 

We could use a "network" prefix to that kind of numbering... just like 

any other network (educonf, country's nren, PCMG, ...) it would be 

interesting because it could be registration free and hassle free. In 

fact most of it would be able to be automatically assigned. But it 

isn't a

"silver bullet"

to solve the issue because many terminals are behind nat and you can't 

address all the terminals these way.

 

Again... the wide/open the model, the more distinct and innovative the 

options will be.

 

{{

1- How many NRENs or Universities are using NATed IP addresses in its 

MCUs?

As H.323 and SIP is not so good with NAT, I dare say no NAT and no 

private IP addresses (10/8, 172.16/12 or 192.168/16) are been used for 

these video resources.

}}

 

Many... most (if not all!) of our VoIP network is behind an SBC that is 

the only "public" IP address known on the open network. H.323 is even 

less good transversing NAT, nevertheless there are many using that 

architecture.

 

{{

2- How many of these video resources are using IPv6?

Who has today an MCU using just IPv6?

When do you plan to remove IPv4 from these devices?

}}

 

There are IPv6 resources available, all Cisco (Cisco, Tandberg, Codian) 

products are IPv6 enabled. Others like Radvision, Lifesize and Polycom 

are taking major steps. There are some NRENs that are providing the 

service in IPv6.

 

Of course there isn't a date to remove IPv4. The question, is when will 

it be impossible to add terminals to the IPv4 network. When it happens, 

we need to be prepared.

 

 

As final comment:

 

The structure that I propose is something like:

 

00{INP}{NP}{NUMBER}

 

INP = Internet Number Prefix CC (as "883", or something similar...) NP 

= Network Prefix to be assigned by the global registry. It could be 

from

1 digit to 5 digits (?). Where NP that are equal to E.164 CC could be 

reserved to NRENs or regulators of those countries.

NUMBER = extension number within the network addressed by {NP}. The 

total number should not be longer than 14(?) digits.

 

Something like this would be possible:

 

00 ### @ %%%%%%%%

00 ### @@ %%%%%%%

00 ### @@@ %%%%%%

00 ### @@@@ %%%%%

00 ### @@@@@ %%%%

 

Eventually the INP should be just 1 digit, but that would send us to 

another "numbering war". ;-)

 

This structure would allow us to delegate about 40k networks...

 

Rui

 

Rui Ribeiro

Gestor Serviço Técnico de Vídeo

GEANT3 - SA3 - T4, eduCONF Leader

FCCN

 

Aviso de Confidencialidade/Disclaimer

Esta mensagem é exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatário, podendo 

conter informação CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgação está expressamente 

vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta 

mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta 

via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteúdo de 

imediato.

This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain 

CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been 

received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351

218440100 and delete it immediately

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/enum-wg/attachments/20130604/aee1060c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 48644 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/enum-wg/attachments/20130604/aee1060c/attachment.png>