On 2 Jun 2011, at 09:07, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Only regulation can unlock this situation. That forces E.164 holders to either have a DNS that people can enter whatever they want, or let third
Patrik is right. It really is a competition issue. What I'm sure of is that E.164 is NOT going away anytime soon despite what our IETF colleagues think. The competition issue is also the driver for carrier ENUM as well. I'm getting serious hints on this side of the pond that the driver is HD Voice (G.722) especially for the LTE mobile deployments rolling out in 2012. The carriers finally realized they cant deploy anything new if the number translation infrastructure remained the same. -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:27 AM To: Jim Reid Cc: Richard Shockey; RIPE ENUM WG; cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [enum-wg] market potential/future for public ENUM On 2 jun 2011, at 11.17, Jim Reid wrote: parties run DNS for the E.164 numbers in question.
True. But, playing Devil's Advocate, why would a regulator want to
intervene?
From a competition point of view.
The question is of course if the E.164 is to be used for other services than voice. If so, without unbundling of E.164 from the (one) provider of services, only the provider of the voice service that the E.164 is tied to can also provide other services (like video conferencing, SIP etc). It is completely up to the regulators what kind of competition and open market they want.
I expect they'd feel there was no point because the market has already made its decision about public ENUM. That would also get them off the hook for regulatory oversight of the Tier-1 delegation and name space: registry contract, codes of conduct, SLAs, etc. If you were the regulator, what path would you choose? :-)
I would immediately require the provider that is tied to the E.164 to 1. Run DNS/ENUM for the numbers they provide services for 2. Give the ability for the user of the E.164 to say what URIs the NAPTRs for the E.164 should refer to 3. As alternative to 1+2, give the ability for the user of the E.164 to run DNS themselves (directly or indirectly at a third party DNS provider) 4. Require the ones that run the LNP database (or equivalent) to expose the content via ENUM It is serious now. Either E.164 numbers will never again be used, and will die a slow death, or it will be used also in the future. It is up to the regulator. Patrik