1 / 10

Infrastructure ENUM Options

Infrastructure ENUM Options. Richard Stastny Michael Haberler IETF#65 Dallas, TX. One Tree. common consensus to have ONE common global public tree for Infrastructure ENUM even from people currently offering Infrastructure ENUM services in private federated ENUM trees

justus
Download Presentation

Infrastructure ENUM Options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Infrastructure ENUM Options Richard StastnyMichael Haberler IETF#65 Dallas, TX

  2. One Tree • common consensus to have ONE common global public tree for Infrastructure ENUM • even from people currently offering Infrastructure ENUM services in private federated ENUM trees • “a common tree would be preferable (if it is mine)” • Requirement 2.1. • Infrastructure ENUM SHALL provide a means for a provider to populate DNS RRs in a common publicly accessible namespace for the E.164 numbering resources for which it is the carrier-of-record. Richard Stastny

  3. In .arpa • Infrastructure ENUM could be implemented in any domain • Requirement 2.6. • Infrastructure ENUM SHALL be implemented under a TLD that can support reliability and performance suitable for PSTN applications. • We propose to use .arpa also for Infrastructure ENUM Richard Stastny

  4. Advantages of .arpa • Involvement of IETF, IAB, RIPE and ITU-T necessary • Existing international and national procedures and policies may be re-used • No need (and time required) to create a new governing body to define the policy framework Richard Stastny

  5. Three Options in .arpa • Above the Country code • either „i.e164.arpa“ (or „e164i.arpa“) • Somewhere below the country code • e.g. carrier.3.4.e164.arpa • Pursue Option 1 and Option 2 in parallel • All options fulfill requirement 2.8 Richard Stastny

  6. Option 1 • Above the Country Code e.g. in i.e164.arpa • most straightforward solution • minimum impact on RFC 3761, no add. RFC needed • minimum impact on clients • IETF, IAB, RIPE and eventually ITU-T involvement necessary • it has to be checked with ITU-T if the existing Interim Procedures are still valid or have to be modified • but this can only be done AFTER principal agreement by IAB and RIPE • If done according to the existing Interim Procedures, opt-in into Infrastructure ENUM is also a national decision like User ENUM (and an opt-in of the CoR) • These activities will require definitely some time Richard Stastny

  7. Option 2 • Below the Country Code e.g. in .e164.arpa • not so straightforward • no impact on RFC 3761, but add. RFC needed • more impact on clients (SP only) • No IETF, IAB, RIPE and ITU-T involvement necessary • a national matter only: • decision to put in the Branch Location Record (BLR) • where to put the Infrastructure ENUM tree • split off at or below the CC • on any other domain • Can be implemented immediately (NOW!) Richard Stastny

  8. Option 2 Examples • The Branch Location Record (BLR) gives the following information: • where the split occurres • what the label of the split tree is • what the apex of the tree is • in infra.3.4.e164.arpa • BLR 2 “infra” “e164.arpa” in 3.4.e164.arpa • in carrier.a.p.n.1.e164.arpa • BLR 4 “carrier” “e164.arpa” in 1.e164.arpa • in 9.4.e164.info • BLR 0 “” “e164.info” in 9.4.e164.arpa • for more info and how to locate the BLRsee draft-haberler-carrier-enum-02.txt Richard Stastny

  9. Option 1+2 • Option 1 may take some time, • OTOH the need for Infrastructure ENUM is immediate (at least for trials), • it is proposed to pursue Options 1 and 2 in parallel • Countries using Option 2 now may choose anytime to fall back on Option 1 • by simply moving their tree over and • changing their BLR to BLR 0 “” “e164.arpa” Richard Stastny

  10. Summary • Proposed way forward for Infrastructure ENUM • finalize requirements • decide to use .arpa • pursue options 1 and 2 in parallel: • IAB and RIPE • draft RFC 3761bis • RFC to define interim BLR Richard Stastny

More Related