Subject: Re: [Enum] E.164 communication assumptions/requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:34:13 -0400

Richard Stastny replied to James McEachern:

>>I'm not sure I understand what it would mean to route an ENUM-only number
to the PSTN.
>
>All E.164 numbers needs to be (should be ;-) routed on the PSTN, so an
ENUM-only
>number is routed to the nearest GW capable of querying ENUM.
>
>For each such number range at least one default GW exists.
>This is especially necessary if say an operator in the US
>does not now or does not care that +43780xxxx is
>an ENUM only range, the call still can be completed
>by simply routing the call to +43
>
So there is a kind of ^carrier-of-record^ even for ENUM-only numbers,
at least in Austria.  I would hope that other countries will require
similar arrangements if they allow ENUM-only number assignments.
By the way, if the governments of countries allowing assignment of
ENUM-only numbers want to consider a completely level playing field
for telecommunications users and providers (and require true portability),
the number ranges for ENUM-only numbers won't stay purely ENUM when
some users port those numbers to PSTN carriers.  This may be country-
dependent.

Jim

>-richard

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

---

From: Ray Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:52:08 +0100

> >by simply routing the call to +43

How can the call be "completed" if there is no human or voice source at 
that ENUM  (i.e. its just a web page for example)