Using NPAC as the ENUM Registry

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Insert Tradeshow or Event Name -- Date Insert Presentation Title Realities of Multi-Domain Gateway Network Management Jonathan Rosenberg.
Advertisements

Tekelecs opinion on Change orders NANC 400 and NANC 401 ENUM.
International Telecommunication Union ENUM Issues and Solutions Houlin Zhao Director Telecommunication Standardization Bureau International Telecommunication.
2/12/2001 ENUM Administration Penn Pfautz AT&T
Next Generation Emergency Services Christian Militeau Intrado,Inc. March 21, 2006.
SIP & SS7 (SIP-02) Monday - 09/10/07, 10:00-10:45am.
1 IP Inter-carrier Routing Capabilities to Support IP Services Interconnection Gary Richenaker Principal Solutions Architect iconectiv
Carrier/Infrastructure ENUM Requirements draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-01.
VoipNow Core Solution capabilities and business value.
© 2004 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. The world’s networking company SM An Evolution Path for Numbering and Interconnection Future Of Numbering Symposium November.
ENUM Trial Implementation and results ENUM Workshop ETSI HQ Sophia Antipolis, France February 2004.
Draft-pfautz-lind-enum-carrier- 00.txt IETF 60 4 August 2004 Steven D. Lind.
SOA – Development Organization Yogish Pai. 2 IT organization are structured to meet the business needs LOB-IT Aligned to a particular business unit for.
December 5, 2003FG3 Report FOCUS GROUP 3 Interoperability Report to NRIC VI Council December 5, 2003 Cliff Naughton (Boeing)
ENUM? “ Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM or Enum, from TElephone NUmber Mapping) is a suite of protocols to unify the telephone numbering system E.164 with.
February 25, Infrastructure-ENUM Secure, Private, Next Generation Addressing Infrastructure Douglas J. Ranalli Founder, Chief Strategy Officer NetNumber,
Naming & Addressing ENUM, EPC, WINC overview JaeYoung Choi
1 NGN Issues - Numbering and Addressing Peter Darling ACIF NGN FOG No. 3.
PSTN – User ENUM – „Infrastructure ENUM“ An ETSI View Richard Stastny IETF60 San Diego.
RIPE64 Enum Working Group DE-CIX NGN Services.
How Will You Be Developing Your Next Application? (SIP-01)
Services COIN association Number Portability M2M Broadband Switching Access CRDB Data export B-Number shielding Fraud covenant 1.
ENUM Update for voipeer BOF Richard Shockey ENUM co-chair IETF 63 Paris.
12 January 2006 CDG Conference Call Integrating Existing Number Portability Solutions in Carrier-ENUM Douglas Ranalli, NetNumber, Inc.
Industry Canada 1 Bob Leafloor Colman Ho Peter Chau Industry Canada January 2003 (ENUM) T E lephone NU mber M apping.
© Copyright 2007 Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Voice Peering Steve Heap Chief Technology Officer.
Slide 1 Nicklas Beijar - TRIP, ENUM and Number Portability TRIP, ENUM and Number Portability Nicklas Beijar
© Copyright 2007 Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. All Rights Reserved. VoIP Peering Pilot Using the Internet2 Backbone.
ENUM Services and their Provisioning Submitted by VeriSign, Inc and Telcordia Technologies, Inc Available at
© 2004 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. The world’s networking company SM VoIP, Portability, and the Evolution of Addressing LNPA & Future of Numbering Working.
1 ENUM’s Role in VoIP IP Telephony Conference & Expo Miami February 12, 2004 Sheri Jenkinson VeriSign Communication Services Product Manager - ENUM
1 Barriers to Enum What VoIP providers ask about Enum Dr. Dorgham Sisalem.
IP Network Clearinghouse Solutions ENUM IP-Enabling The Global Telephone Directory Frank Estes Vice President , ext 224
Sridhar Ramachandran Chief Technology Officer Core Session Controller.
1January 2006Richard Stastny Developments around Infrastucture ENUM and their relevance on NGNs Workshop on NGN Interconnection and Numbering TRIS – TISPAN.
CP-a Emergency call stage 2 requirements - A presentation of the requirements from 3GPP TS Keith Drage.
Peering Considerations for Directory Assistance and Operator Services - John Haluska Telcordia SPEERMINT, IETF 68 Prague, Czech Republic 20 March 2007.
The State of VoIP Peering Charles Studt Director of Product Management, VoEX.
7/6/20061 Speermint Use Case for Cable IETF 66 Yiu L. Lee JULY 2006.
1 SPEERMINT Use Cases for Cable IETF 66 Montreal 11 JULY 2006 Presented by Yiu L. Lee.
System Wide Information Management (SWIM). FAA Transition to Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) - System Wide Information Management (SWIM) Initiative.
Intelligent Interconnects in the VoIP Peering Environment
Slide 1 Nicklas Beijar - TRIP, ENUM and Number Portability TRIP, ENUM and Number Portability Nicklas Beijar
Jackie Voss Manager, Global Standards Development ATIS All-IP Transition Initiatives September 30, 2015.
Peering: A Minimalist Approach Rohan Mahy IETF 66 — Speermint WG.
12/18/2000 ENUM Administration Penn Pfautz AT&T
1 Introduction to ENUM Technical and operational aspects Marco Bernardi NeuStar, Inc
ENF/ERO ENUM Convergence Workshop Tony Holmes Chairman ETSI SPAN11 NAR BTexact Technologies Numbering Addressing & Routeing 9-10 January 2002 Standards.
Structured Container Delivery Oscar Renalias Accenture Container Lead (NOTE: PASTE IN PORTRAIT AND SEND BEHIND FOREGROUND GRAPHIC FOR CROP)
Carrier/Infrastructure ENUM Requirements draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-01.
Generalizing Metadata Services URLs Dale Moberg. Metadata Services Parts L,M, and N of PEPPOL describe a solution for finding out about capabilities and.
Jim McEachern Senior Technology Consultant ATIS July 8, 2015.
Telephone Related Queries (TeRQ)
THIS IS THE WAY ENUM Variants Jim McEachern
Kenjiro Arai NTT ITU Workshop on “Voice and Video over LTE” Geneva, Switzerland, 1 December 2015 NNI standards for IMS inter-connection.
Technical and Operational Aspects
ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Force – Routing Team
Default cover design. Current Routing Solutions supporting the Interconnection of Carrier IP –based Multimedia Services in North America IPNNI
The Domain Policy DDDS Application
System Wide Information Management (SWIM)
OSPF Extensions for ASON Routing draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-03.txt IETF67 - Prague - Mar’07 Dimitri.
#01 Client/Server Computing
Level 3 Voice Services Network Architecture June 15, 2004
Realities of Multi-Domain Gateway Network Management
Thursday, September 3, :30 – 9:15 a.m.
Implementation of ENUM on telecommunication networks
Routing Considerations
Pre NNP.
#01 Client/Server Computing
ENUM successes – failures - alternatives
Presentation transcript:

Using NPAC as the ENUM Registry IPNNI-2014-006 Using NPAC as the ENUM Registry December 10, 2013 Penn Pfautz pp3129@att.com

Why an ENUM Registry? Routing mechanisms need to evolve beyond reliance on central office codes ENUM technology is already deployed within many networks and in some interconnection Looking for consensus on a common ENUM registry as is needed for ENUM to ultimately replace existing routing mechanisms

NPAC as ENUM Registry NPAC capabilities can be used to instantiate a combined Tier 0/1 ENUM registry for the US Existing VOICEURI field is re-purposed to contain NS record(s) which point to the Tier 2 ENUM server of the service provider of record for number NS records are populated into NPAC by the serving provider SOA and distributed to each provider LSMS Providers then populate the NS records in their internal ENUM servers Originating provider queries its ENUM server and obtains the NS record resulting in a query to the Tier 2 ENUM server of the destination carrier. The response to the Tier 2 query provides NAPTR records that identify the ingress SBC to be used to deliver the call to terminating provider.

NS Records in the VOICEURI Field Populate NS info in VOICEURI field as just FQDN, tier2enum.serviceprovider.com, rather than full form 3.8.0.0.6.9.2.3.6.4.1.e164enum.net IN NS tier2enum.provider.net Full record form reconstituted by the service provider for provisioning in its ENUM server Multiple NS records could be populated in the NPAC VOICEURI field using separator character. allows for redundant name server instances An apex domain needs to be agreed upon

Tier 2 ENUM Server Query to the service provider of record’s Tier 2 server has the normal (RFC 6116) form Response would be the set of NAPTR records associated with the queried number Tier 2 server is not constrained to be a vanilla DNS server; behind the ENUM query/response interface it might support whatever application of policy that the destination carrier desired Query over same interconnection fabric that a subsequent SIP INVITE would traverse

Why use the NPAC? Providers already interface with NPAC No additional development in the NPAC per se is required Already pay for NPAC which can’t go away until PSTN sunset complete Putting IP and TDM routing data in one platform facilitates synchronization with number portability and eases transition Post sunset, data can be migrated to new platform if desired.

Why a Tiered Architecture? “Thin” registry minimizes the amount of common infrastructure for which the industry must share costs Delegates policy to decisions to the Tier 2, allowing providers flexibility Policy in the NPAC would require new development and cost and agreement among providers on the scope and nature of policy to be supported. Current capabilities of the NPAC URI fields are limited Tiered approach provides for definition of enumservices and new NAPTRs as desired without NPAC development

How does the NPAC ENUM approach affect the number of queries needed to route a call? In the end state, inter-provider routing will require a query to the originator’s internal ENUM server and a query to the destination provider’s Tier 2 In the interim when there is still TDM interconnection, different providers may adapt different strategies ENUM only for IP routing (e.g., in IMS): calls for which there is IP interconnection require just the internal ENUM server and external Tier 2 query Calls without an IP route might be routed to the BGCF for a conventional LNP query if the internal ENUM query received a null response LNP integrated into ENUM (RFC 4769): single ENUM query (followed by a Tier 2 query where there is IP interconnection) suffices for all call types

How does the NPAC ENUM approach affect Reliability? Destination carriers have strong incentives to keep their customers reachable and to engineer their Tier 2 arrangements to provide high reliability. Path used to send the query will generally be the same used to send the subsequent SIP INVITE In initial implementation, legacy TDM interconnection is likely to be present as a fallback providing some opportunity for any issues to be worked out.