ENUM Tutorial Part 2 ENUM History ENUM Summit 2005 Miami, FL'

1
ENUM Tutorial Part 2ENUM HistoryENUM Summit
2005Miami, FL.

• 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 ETSI ENUM Workshop (Feb 2004) IETF
  new RFC3761 Enumservices registration at
  IANA ongoing US LLC for CC 1 formed
  1st commercial ENUM service worldwide in
  Austria
• 2005 ETSI TS 102 172 V2 Minimum Requirements
  for Interoperability of ENUM
  Implementations approved ETSI TR 102 055
  Infrastructure ENUM approved ETSI ENUM
  Plugtest End of May

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

Description of Working Group This working group
has defined a DNS-based architecture and protocol
RFC 2916 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). The result of the ENUM query
is a series of DNS NAPTR resource records
RFC2915  which can be used to contact a
resource (e.g.URI) associated with that
number. The Working Group proposes to advance
RFC 2916 from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.
9
ENUM WG Goals and Scope

• The working group will update RFC 2916 to
  reference the DDDS system (revision of RFC 2915)
  and advance RFC 2916 to Draft Standard.
• The working group will examine and document
  various aspects of ENUM administrative and/or
  operational procedures as Informational. Issues
  to be considered include privacy and security
  considerations in storing ENUM related data as
  well as validation and authentication of data,
  including DDDS NAPTR records in the DNS. The
  working group will coordinate activities in these
  areas with the DNSEXT WG and PROVREG WG when
  appropriate.
• The Working Group will continue to maintain
  appropriate contact and liaison with standards
  bodies and groups, specifically ITU-T SG2, in
  order to provide technical or educational
  information as needed, such as the appropriate
  use of DNS.  The Working Group will encourage the
  exchange of technical information within the
  emerging global ENUM community as well as
  documentation on practical experiences with
  implementations or administration of RFC 2916.

10
Goals and Milestones

• Done Initial draft of Service ENUM Requirements
• Done   Initial draft of ENUM Protocol
• Done   Revised draft of ENUM Protocol
• Done   Submit ENUM Protocol document to IESG for
  publication as Proposed
• Done   Revise and update RFC 2916 appropriate to
  DDDS (revision of 2915)
• Done   ENUM service registrations for SIP and
  H.323
• Aug 03 Document appropriate ENUM Security and
  Privacy Issues (Informational)
• Nov 03 Document appropriate ENUM Registration and
  Provisioning Procedures (Informational)

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 Interregnum

• At a February 2002 meeting of experts a draft set
  of interim procedures for the delegation of
  geographic E.164 Country Codes were conditionally
  approved by the participants but needed to be
  formally approved at the May meeting of SG2
• Therefore, there were no formal ITU procedures in
  place from the February 2002 meeting until the
  May meeting of SG2
• Only the RIPE-NCC procedures were in effect
• With no procedures in place countries such as
  France, Germany and the US took proactive steps
  to safeguard the delegation of their countries
  codes during this period
• However, those countries who did not protect
  their E.164 Country Code were in jeopardy of
  having their country code delegated to the first
  requestor

17
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

18
ITU-T and ENUM Agreements

• At SG2, it was also agreed that a legal
  instrument of agreement needed to be negotiated
  between the ITU-TSB/ITU and ISOC in accordance
  with the ITUs procedures
• The ITU Telecommunications Standardization Bureau
  (TSB) began discussions and exchanged letters
  with RIPE-NCC to establish working relationship
  and develop procedures that were aligned with one
  another
• At the May meeting of SG2, a report of a visit
  between the TSB and RIPE-NCC was reported as well
  as a copy of all the documentation that had been
  exchanged
• These letters and agreements form part of the
  requested legal instrument. Discussion is taking
  place with respect to issues not covered so far

19
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

20
ITU-T and ENUM

• Although it has not been without issues on both
  sides, the ITU and its members and ISOC and its
  members have developed a working relationship and
  provided an aligned set of procedures that allow
  for countries to delegate their E.164 Country
  Code into e164.arpa
• As a result of the discussions, both sides now
  have a better understanding of the issues of
  concern to their respective memberships
• A copy of the interim procedures can be obtained
  at
• http//www.itu.int/ITU-T/inr/enum/index.html

21
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

22
ITU Draft Recommendation Principles Procedures
for Administration of E.164 CCs

• ITU has responsibility for Administrative
  control of CCs
• Recommendation defines principles procedures
  for assignee to register a CC domain at the ENUM
  root level in the DNS
• Recognises Subsequent levels are national matters
  (guidance on this will be in the ITU Supplement)
• Doesnt cover technical operation of the DNS

23
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

24
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.

25
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

26
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
27
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.

28
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

29
ITU-T Supplement on operational and
administrative issues associated with ENUM

• Provides an overview of concepts
• Describes issues that need to be addressed by
  Administrations as they consider the inclusion of
  numbers within the DNS which are under their
  jurisdiction
• Also covers issues that need to be addressed by
  stakeholders of shared country codes e.g. codes
  for Networks and Global Services

30
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

31
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
32
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
33
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!

34
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

35
The Generic ETSI Model
36
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.

37
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.

38
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.

39
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.

40
ENUM Implementations
Delegations in e164.arpa as of June 20th, 2005

• 31 Netherlands
• 33 France Trial
• 353 Ireland
• 354 Iceland
• 358 Finland Trial
• 36 Hungary
• 374 Armenia
• 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
• 49 Germany Trial

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

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

http//www.ripe.net/enum/request-archives/http/
/www.centr.org/kim/enum/index.html
41
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).

42
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

43
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.

44
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

45
Estimated CC1 ENUM LLC TimelineOctober 20, 2004
This information is subject to change due to the
needs of the CC1 ENUM LLC
46
End of Part 2

• Thank you

Richard Stastny ÖFEG 43 664 420
4100 richard.stastny_at_oefeg.at
47
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

48
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

49
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

50
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