Subject: RE: [Enum] Tier II roll out

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:04:59 -0800

David,

> Christian,
> 
> At 09:12 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> >Forcing
> >everybody in a single tree is not and should not be the role of the 
> >IETF.
> 
> Guess we should remove references to in-addr.arpa in the RFCs then.

The delegation of in-addr.arpa directly derives from the allocation of
unique IP addresses, which is needed for the safe operation of the
Internet; this is not the case of phone numbers. While not entirely
absent, the business problems are fairly minimal: the reverse mappings
are not used for much more than logging purposes. This is not the case
for the routing of faxes, or voice-mail.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:03:33 -0800

Christian,

At 03:04 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
>Internet; this is not the case of phone numbers.

??

Having 1-605-381-6003 not go to my office would really piss me off, 
regardless of whether it was dialed over the PSTN or via some VoIP magic.

>While not entirely

Which would seem to argue more strongly for global uniqueness.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Stephane Alnet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:11:35 -0500

>Internet; this is not the case of phone numbers.

I'm not sure I understand this part: a DNS entry in the "1.e164.arpa" 
subtree probably denotes a North-American phone number, whether an entry 
within the "3.3.e164.arpa" subtree would denote a French phone number.

Why would this be more complicated to administrate than current DNS 
national TLS (e.g. ".fr" => NIC FR) or the "in-addr.arpa" domain (e.g., 
ARIN delegates to the major SPs who delegate to Tier II SPs who delegate to 
customers); similarly "1.e164.arpa" could be delegated to NANPA, and 
"3.3.e164.arpa" to the French equivalent? [I understand the number of "top 
domain country numbers" is relatively limited.] Then, defining how to 
delegate inside each country/zone becomes a matter of either local policy 
or ITU policy (*).

S.

(*) For example, NANPA may decide to delegate to CLECs and carriers (not 
necessarily on a uniform basis), which in turn may decide to delegate to 
enterprise customers (for DID purposes) -- but other countries ("codes") 
may want to do it differently.