ENUM Tutorial Part 2 ENUM History ENUM Summit Europe 2005 IQBC, Frankfurt, Germany 21' November 2005

1
ENUM Tutorial Part 2ENUM HistoryENUM Summit
Europe 2005IQBC, Frankfurt, Germany21. November
2005

• Richard Stastny, ÖFEG

The opinions expressed here may or may not be
that of my company
2
ENUM Tutorial

• What is ENUM?How it works technically
• ENUM History International and National
• ENUM in AustriaThe Trial and the Commercial
  DeploymentLessons Learned
• The other ENUMInfrastructure and Carrier ENUM
• The Future of ENUMBenefits and problems

3
Content Part 2

• International Developments
• IETF
• ITU-T
• ETSI
• Others
• National Developments
• Fora and Trials
• ENUM Implementations and Status
• US Forum

4
(Very short) ENUM History

• 1999 IETF ENUM WG formed
• 2000 IETF ENUM WG RFC2916
• 2001 Int. and nat. workshops (ITU-T, Europe,
  US, Asia, )
• 2002 ITU -T Interim Procedures (IAB, RIPE-NCC)
  ETSI TS 102 051 "ENUM Administration in
  Europe National Consultations and
  ENUMTrials started (Austria)
• 2003 ETSI TS 102 172 "Minimum Requirements for
  Interoperability of European ENUM
  Trials" more national ENUMTrials joined
• 2004 IETF new RFC3761 and various
  Enumservices US LLC for CC 1 formed
  1st commercial ENUM service worldwide in
  Austria
• 2005 ETSI TS 102 172 V2 published ETSI
  TR 102 055 Infrastructure ENUM published
  ENUM-driven number range opens in Austria
  (43780)
• IETF Re-chartering of ENUM WG
  Infrastructure ENUM
• IETF SPEER dealing with SIP Peering
  and Interconnect
• 2006 Progress work on ENUM, Peering and IP
  Interconnect

5
The Starting Point of ENUM
Questions ENUM looked to answer

• How do you find services on the Internet if you
  only have a telephone number E.164?
• How to enable new IP services while creating new
  competitive markets and protect consumer
  choice,etc?
• How can consumers and carriers have equal access
  to these new opportunities?
• How do we create a trusted TN based resource for
  information about those services?
• How do you make this simple, easy to use, without
  reinventing the wheel?

6
Some early answers from the IETF

• Use the DNS it works... Its global...It
  scales..etc.
• Telephone Number in URI out
• RFC2916 was developed by the IETF to define the
  use of DNS resource records to find optional
• E-mail addresses
• Voice over IP SIP / H.323 servers
• Voice Mail servers
• Fax Machines
• New and yet undefined services !

7
Who is the IETF?

• Internet Engineering Task Force
• The organization that oversees the standards
  process for Internet protocols and technologies
• Industry-based standards body with broad
  participation from vendors, operators and
  researchers

8
Telephone Number Mapping (enum)

• Chair(s)
• Patrik Faltstrom ltpaf_at_cisco.comgtRichard Shockey
  ltrich.shockey_at_neustar.bizgtTransport Area
  Director(s)
• Allison Mankin ltmankin_at_psg.comgtJon Peterson
  ltjon.peterson_at_neustar.bizgtTransport Area
  Advisor
• Allison Mankin ltmankin_at_psg.comgt

Proposed New Charter The ENUM working group has
defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol
RFC 3761 by which an E.164 number, as defined
in ITU Recommendation E.164, can be expressed as
a Fully Qualified Domain Name in a specific
Internet Infrastructure domain defined for this
purpose (e164.arpa). E.164 numbers are globally
unique, language independent identifiers for
resources on Public Telecommunication Networks
that can support many different services and
protocols. There is an emerging desire for
network operators to utilize aspects of RFC 3761
to discover points of interconnection necessary
to terminate communications sessions identified
by a E164 number, in addition to identifying end
point protocols and services.
9
ENUM WG Revised Goals and Scope

• The working group will update RFC 3761 and
  advance to Draft Standard.
• The working group will examine and document the
  use of RFC 3761 to facilitate network
  interconnection for services using E.164
  addressing. The working group will coordinate its
  activities with other IETF working groups,
  existing or to be chartered, that are
  investigating elements of peering and or
  interconnection for VoIP or other services that
  typically use E.164 addressing.
• The working group will continue examine and
  document various aspects of ENUM administrative
  and /or operational procedures irrespective of
  whether e164.arpa domain is used.
• The working group will also examine the use of
  RFC 3761 technology for storing and delivering
  other information about services addressed by
  E.164 numbers, for example PSTN call routing and
  signaling data.
• The Working Group will continue to maintain
  appropriate contact and liaison with other
  standards bodies and groups, specifically ITU-T
  SG2, to provide technical or educational
  information and address, as needed, issues
  related to the use of the E.164 numbering plan
  for services on IP networks. In addition the
  Working Group will continue to encourage the
  exchange of technical information within the
  emerging global ENUM community as well as
  documentation on practical experiences with
  implementations, alternate technology uses and
  the administration and provisioning of RFC 3761.
• As described in RFC 3761, the IETF documents and
  registers the Enumservices. While extant, it is
  the ENUM working group that performs the
  technical review and development of the
  Enumservices for the Internet community. The
  working group determines whether to advance them
  and how to progress them technically.
  Coordination with other WGs will be taken into
  account on these.
• Other than Enumservices, all proposed
  deliverables of the working group will be
  discussed with and approved by the Area
  Directors, who may require wider review due to
  the broad impact of the subject.

10
Goals and Milestones
11
ENUM Administration (IETF)

• The IETF did not care very much about the
  administration of ENUM. In RFC3761 is simply
  stated
• The domain "e164.arpa" is being populated in
  order to provide the infrastructure in DNS for
  storage of E.164 numbers. In order to facilitate
  distributed operations, this domain is divided
  into subdomains.
• Holders of E.164 numbers which want to be listed
  in DNS should contact the appropriate zone
  administrator according to the policy which is
  attached to the zone.
• One should start looking for this information by
  examining the SOA resource record associated with
  the zone, just like in normal DNS operations.
• Of course, as with other domains, policies for
  such listing will be controlled on a subdomain
  basis and may differ in different parts of the
  world.
• Since E.164 numbers are controlled by the ITU-T,
  and .arpa is controlled by the IAB, the ISOC and
  the IAB contacted the ITU-T

12
ITU and ENUM - Background

• Background
• ISOC requested that the ITU be involved in order
  to authenticate that the legitimate
  representative of the Member State (Country)
  applied for delegation of its E.164 Country Code
  into e164.arpa
• ITU-T SG2 began developing a Recommendation that
  would govern the procedures for the Tier 0
  administrative aspects of populating E.164
  numbers into the common designated domain

13
What is the ITU?

• What is the ITU?
• A treaty organization founded in 1865
• Presently, a specialized agency within the United
  Nations system
• Includes Member States, Sector Members and
  Associates
• Governments and the private sector develop
  Recommendations to co-ordinate service,
  operational and technical requirements for global
  networks and services
• Three major sectors of ITU
• ITU-R (Radio-Communication)
• ITU-T (Telecom Standardization)
• ITU-D (Telecom Development)
• Goal of the ITU-T
• Representatives of the ITU Membership develop
  Recommendations for the various fields of
  telecommunications

14
ITU-T and ENUM - Problems

• It wasnt that easy
• Germany Governance of the ENUM root zone should
  be international and politically and commercially
  neutral
• China - Opposed the use of the TLD .arpa for
  ENUM implementation and proposed that another TLD
  that is under the unique responsibility of the
  ITU would be more suitable
• France and Syria- Proposed that the TLD for the
  whole ENUM DNS be a TLD delegated to the ITU
  itself as the administrative responsible entity

15
ITU-T and ENUM Administrative Control

• During the September 2001 meeting it was agreed
  to separate administrative control from
  operational control
• The ITU would have administrative control
• Tier 0 would have operational control at
  present RIPE NCC
• Administrative control is defined as the
  necessary procedures by which E.164 country codes
  would be registered at the Tier 0 level in the
  common designated ENUM domain under consideration
  in a transparent and administratively neutral
  manner
• The ITU shall have the responsibility over the
  administration of E.164 country code resources in
  the ENUM proposal under consideration

16
ITU-T and ENUM Interim Procedures

• At the May meeting of SG2, the participants
  reviewed the draft set of initial interim
  procedures developed by the experts group in
  February, made some editorial revisions, and then
  unanimously approved the procedures
• In addition, the RIPE-NCC procedures were
  reviewed and some minor clarifications were
  requested
• Consequently, with the approval of these interim
  procedures countries that now apply to RIPE-NCC
  for the delegation of their country code, will
  have that application authenticated by the
  ITU-TSB

17
ITU-T and ENUM other Country Codes

• It was recognized that only interim procedures
  for the delegation of E.164 geographic country
  codes were approved and that assignees of Network
  Codes or Groups of Countries still did not have
  an approved delegation procedure
• At an experts meeting in September 2002 a draft
  set of interim procedures for CC ICs and CC
  GIG was proposed
• At the December meeting of SG2, the participants
  reviewed the draft set of interim procedures
  developed by the experts group in September, made
  some editorial revisions, and then unanimously
  approved the procedures
• The code 878-10 had been delegated on a special
  interim basis at the May 2002 SG2 meeting

18
ITU-T and ENUM Current status

• Currently the Interim Procedures are still in
  force, amended with interim procedures for
  Country Codes for Networks.
• These Interim Procedures should be replaced
  finally with the draft ITU-T Recommendation
  E.A-ENUM, but this Rec. is still not approved.
• Earliest date possible December 2005

19
The basic idea of the Interim Procedures

• The ITU/ISOC Global-Tree will be a top rooted,
  global DNS ENUM implementation
• Member States would have the choice of opting in
  or out of this implementation
• Each ITU Member State may administer their
  portion of E.164 resources mapped into DNS as
  they see fit
• There will be other private and perhaps global
  competitive-tree implementations

20
The Interim Procedures

• Anybody may send a request for delegation to RIPE
  NCC
• RIPE NCC is checking the request only for
  technical correctness (e.g. at least 2
  operational nameservers)
• RIPE NCC is forwarding the request to ITU TSB
  (Technical Standards Bureau), because only ITU
  TSB is able to answer the following two
  questions
• Is the request for a valid country code?
• Has the responsible national organization
  approved the request?
• If both questions can be answered with yes, ITU
  TSB is affirming the request.
• Any new request is handled in the same way, so a
  country may change the delegation at any time
  just sending in a new request for delegation.

21
The Tiered Approach

• The Global-Tree domain name space is organized
  in three tiers
• Tier-0 is managed internationally
• The ITU-TSB has administrative responsibility
• RIPE-NCC has operational responsibility
• Countries may opt-in at the Tier-0 level
• The Tier-0 name server has NS records for the
  Tier-1 name servers of the opted-in countries
• Tier 1 is managed nationally and is the entity
  that operates the Tier-1 ENUM service within a
  country or Region and has a pointer to the Tier 2
  Entity for each served TN
• Tier2 is the entity that stores a list of service
  specific internet addresses in the form of URIs
  in a DNS resource record called NAPTR for each
  subscriber

22
The three ENUM "Tiers"
Registry
Tier-0
International-RIPE-NCC and ITU-TSB
National
CC 43
CC 1
Directs the DNS query to the customers Tier-2
providers. An NS record is provided for each
subscribers telephone number
Registry
Registry
Tier-1
Tier-1
Stores a list of service specific internet
addresses in the form of URIs in a DNS resource
record called NAPTR for each subscriber. Returns
the full list of Internet addresses associated
with the E.164 number being queried.
Provider
Tier-2
An NS record is an authoritative Name Server DNS
record used to delegate to subordinates
23
Administration Tier 0

• Administration of e164.arpa international
• Current Status ITU-T Interim Procedures
• The Domain Name Holder of .arpa is the IAB (not
  ICANN!)
• ITU-TSB as Registrant registers e164.arpa und is
  somehow (partially?) together with the IAB Domain
  Name Holder of e164.arpa
• ITU-TSB and IAB agree to delegate the technical
  operation of the Zone e164.arpa to RIPE-NCC
  (Registry)
• The administration of the e164.arpa Zone belongs
  to ITU-TSB (Registrar)
• Each Assignee (e.g. NRA) of a E.164 Country Codes
  has the possibility(Opt-in) to register as
  Registrant the Domain c.c.e164.arpa.
• For a zone delegation of the CC a Tech-Contact
  (Registry), an Admin-Contact (Policy Authority,
  NRA) and at least 2 Name Servers must be given.

24
Administration of Tier 1 and Tier 2

• As usual at ITU-T everything below country code
  level is national matter
• This implies that the countries are here on their
  own.
• Each country must define their own policy
  framework on how to deal with ENUM
  administration.
• ITU-T is still working on an ENUM supplement to
  Rec E.A-ENUM to give guidance.
• ETSI started in parallel with ETSI TS 102 051
  ENUM Administration in Europe to provide
  specific guidance to European ENUM trials and
  implementations

25
ETSI and ENUM

• ETSI (SPAN11_NAR)
• ETSI TS 102 051 ENUM Administration in Europe
• Approved in June 2002
• ETSI TS 102 172 Minimum Requirements for the
  Interoperability of European ENUM Trials
• V1 approved February 2003
• update planned (IETF changes, trial feedback)
• Merger of TIPHON and SPAN in June 2003
• SPAN11_NAR continued as TISPAN WG4
• Work on ETSI TR 102 055 Infrastructure ENUM
  started
• ETSI ENUM Workshop in February 2004
• ETSI ENUM Plugtest in November 2004
• ETSI TR 102 055 Infrastructure ENUM May 2005
• ETSI TS 102 172 V2 Minimum Requirements for
  Interoperability of ENUM Implementations May
  2005
• incorporated IETF changes and experiences from
  Trials
• ETSI ENUM Plugtest in May 2005

26
ETSI TS 102 051
Aim To provide basic set of principles that
should be adhered to in order to maximise
potential benefits from publicly available ENUM
implementations within Europe Efforts at drawing
together a a co-ordinated approach should not
only result in a firm foundation for ENUM
activities within the European environment but
should also assist in enhancing the competitive
communications environment
The importance of gaining the support or all
relevant parties was recognised as a prime
requirement
27
Emerging principles in Europe

• E.164 integrity must be maintained
• Compliance with Data Protection Directives
• Adherence to ITU Recommendations and IETF
  Specifications
• Compliance with National Regulatory requirements
• Must facilitate a competitive environment
• Must be user Opt in
• Existing network functions must not be
  compromised e.g. Number Portability, Carrier
  Selection

All provide good safeguards
28
Major Issues of concern

• Provisioning based on false information by users
• Authentication and validation requirements
• Abuse of data stored
• Regulatory requirements
• Alternative ENUM implementations
• .and more!

29
ETSI TS 102 051 content

• ETSI TS 102 051 ENUM Adminstration in Europe is
  providing guidance for ENUM implementations in
  Europe
• Definitions
• A background information and description of ENUM
• Opportunities, threats and risks
• Basic Principles for implementation
• Functional Model
• ENUM entities functions and responsibilities
• General administrative and operating assumptions
  and requirements
• Operational and administrative processes
• Considerations in development and assessment of
  options for national implementations
• Recommendation for ENUM implementation within
  Europe
• Examples of possible models

30
The Generic ETSI Model
31
The Other ETSI documents

• ETSI TS 102 127 V2 Minimum Requirements for
  Interoperability of ENUM Implementations has
  been discussed in Part 1 already
• ETSI TR 102 055 Infrastructure ENUM will be
  discussed in Part 4.

32
Other International Activities

• ENUM was discussed more or less in nearly every
  international body dealing with
  telecommunications, especially in Europe, but
  also in Asia
• EC, ETSI, ONP, ETO/ERO, ETNO, ECMA, RIPE NCC,
  CENTR, APNIC, APRICOT, ...
• The results and views where quite different,
  depending on background
• The situation was and is quite similar to the
  current discussions on VoIP and Emergency
  Services.

33
National ENUM Activities

• The procedure in most countries was along these
  lines
• One or more consultations by the national
  regulator
• ENUM Workshops (some activities stopped here)
• If enough interest showed, establishment of
  groups and fora to progress the work further
• The composition of the groups varied regulators,
  carriers, ISPs, VoIP providers, ccTLDs,
  manufacturers and suppliers.
• In all cases the final goal was to launch a trial
  or a commercial implementation, but two different
  approaches where taken
• Define everything (legally and technically) first
  on paper, before a trial or implementation is
  started
• Define only a rough framework (or MoU) for the
  trial and work on the legal and technical
  requirements for the commercial implementation in
  parallel
• Some taking the first approach are still stuck in
  the paper phase.

34
National ENUM Fora and Trials

• The progress varied
• Some countries started quite early, but got stuck
  in legal discussions or the participants lost
  interest
• Some countries requested delegations from RIPE
  NCC, but did not use it
• Others could not get delegations in e164.arpa
  approved by the national authorities, but where
  very interested in trials, so they started trials
  in other domains.
• E.g. Japan, Korea (now in e164.arpa), Taiwan,
• James Seng, Singapore
• Those who wants to do trials or deploy services
  cant get the delegation
• Those who can get delegation dont know what to
  do with it.

35
ENUM Delegations
Delegations in e164.arpa as of November 15th, 2005

• 31 Netherlands
• 33 France Trial
• 350 Gibraltar
• 353 Ireland Trial
• 354 Iceland
• 358 Finland Trial
• 36 Hungary
• 374 Armenia
• 39 Italy
• 40 Romania
• 41 Switzerland
• 420 Czech Republic Trial?
• 421 Slovakia Trial?
• 423 Liechtenstein Trial
• 43 Austria
• 44 UK Trial
• 46 Sweden Trial
• 47 Norway
• 48 Poland

• 246 Diego Garcia
• 247 Ascension
• 290 Saint Helena
• 55 Brazil
• 61 Australia Trial
• 63 Philippines ?
• 66 Thailand
• 65 Singapore Trial
• 81 Japan Trial
• 82 Korea Trial
• 86 China Trial
• 88234 Global Networks ?
• 87810 VISIONng UPT
• 971 UAE

• 1 North America soon to come?
• additional Asian countries (Taiwan) have trials,
  but not in .arpa

http//www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/http/
/www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html
36
Status of national ENUM Activities

• Since most of the active trials will report on
  their status within the next two days in the
  conference, I will not go into detail here
• basically because I am also a bit confused about
  the latest status of some of the trials -)
• I just want to mention here the US situation,
  because this is important for the future of ENUM
• I also will take Austria as an example, because
  it is one of the only countries with commercial
  service (Part 3).

37
US Activities

• What about the US?
• The US activities started quite early in 2001
• US ITAC-T SGA AdHoc on ENUM the Final Report
  Juli 2001 was basically also the guideline for
  ETSI and many national fora and trials
• US ENUM Forum since August 2001 and served also
  as a model for other fora
• But they decided to go the paperwork approach
• The Unified document 6000 was approved in January
  2003 and presented to the NTIA in February 2003
• After this, again not much progress was achieved
  for some time, because the problem how to deal
  with CC1 was undecided

38
US Activities

• Two options where discussed
• Delegate only US 1 NPAs directly from RIPE NCC
  to one or more US Tier 1
• or to delegate CC1 to a Skinny Tier 1A and
  from there to 1 NPA Tier 1Bs
• End of 2004 the decision was made for the second
  option and it was also decided that Canada will
  operate the Tier 1A.
• In addition the US ENUM LCC was formed.
• The next two slides are from a presentation Rich
  Shockey gave in February 2005 at the APRICOT
  meeting in Kyoto.
• I hope to get a status update tomorrow -)

39
What about the US?

• US ENUM LLC has formed
• 2005 trials and deployment coming
• US DOMESTIC POLICY
• United States Government reiterates its support
  for RFC 3761 and endorses moving forward with
  ENUM based on the concept of a Industry Managed
  LLC
• United States ENUM Forum - http//www.enum-forum.o
  rg
• Participants include MCI, ATT, Sprint, SBC,
  Verizon, NeuStar, Cox , CW, Cisco, Telcordia
• Canada too .. http//www.enumorg.ca
• Similar forums all over Asia-Pac and Europe

40
Estimated CC1 ENUM LLC TimelineOctober 20, 2004
This information is subject to change due to the
needs of the CC1 ENUM LLC
41
US Trial Current Status

• May 2005 Framework Document 6003_1_0 published
• September 2005 USG Delegation Letter Terms and
  Conditions for a US Trial for ENUM
• Major drawbacks
• Only specific geo-geographic numers specifically
  assigned for the trial (same a Japan)
• No testing of Infrastructure ENUM permitted
  during the trial

42
End of Part 2

• Thank you

Richard Stastny ÖFEG 43 664 420
4100 richard.stastny_at_oefeg.at
43
NTIA Principles

• Preserve national sovereignty
• Any participation by the United States in a
  coordinated, global approach must preserve the
  United States' national sovereignty. That is, the
  United States and every other participating
  nation should have the right to determine whether
  and in what manner ENUM or any alternative is
  implemented domestically
• Support Competition
• Domestic implementation of ENUM must also allow
  for competition among providers and operators on
  as many levels as feasible
• Promote Innovation
• Adoption of ENUM or ENUM alternatives must
  encourage innovation and promote advanced voice
  and data services through new products, services,
  and vendors

44
NTIA Principles

• Protect Users Security and Privacy
• Domestic implementation of ENUM must be done in a
  manner that maximizes the privacy and security of
  user data entered in the ENUM DNS domain. For
  example, ENUM providers should develop systems to
  ensure the authentication and authorization of
  users who enter and update their personal
  information
• Minimize Regulation
• Governance of ENUM on the international and
  national level must be accomplished through the
  least regulatory means possible. For example, a
  coordinated, global approach to ENUM should not
  give rise to a new regulatory apparatus to govern
  international and domestic implementation

45
NTIA Principles

• Preserve opportunity for alternative deployments
• The implementation of ENUM within the United
  States must not preclude alternative deployments
  of ENUM or other solutions that may provide
  competitive alternatives to ENUM
• Allow for interoperability
• In order to support competition and the emergence
  of alternative technologies and networks, the
  implementation of ENUM within the United States
  should accommodate alternative deployments'
  interconnection with the ENUM tree
• Preserve stability and security
• Any implementation of ENUM must not diminish the
  stability and security of the Internet or
  telecommunications systems

46
NTIA Principles

• Conclusion
• We (NTIA) must ensure that ENUM can be
  implemented in a pro-consumer, secure, and
  competitive manner. There is a strong consensus
  among the forum participants in favor of the
  United States opting in to e164.arpa, but only if
  ENUM can be implemented in a way that ensures
  competition, interoperability, security, and
  privacy.
• Full text of NTIA document can be found at
• http//www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/enum/
  enum_02122003.htm
• Full text of supporting document from FCC can be
  found at
• http//www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/gross_enum
  _letter-021303.pdf