Making a Standard Work - ENUM Commercialization and Experiences

1. Making a Standard Work - ENUM Commercialization and Experiences Presented to: ENUM Summit 2005 Presented by: Robert W. Schafer & Ronan LuptonDate: 27th June 2005

2. House Keeping – Chatham Rule & Q&A This workshop will be held under The Chatham House Rule which will mean that participants are free to use the information received following the meeting, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the audience speaker(s) may be revealed. It will allow people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organisations, and therefore it encourages free discussion which we believe will be of benefit to all attending. We plan to leave adequate time for questions and answers at the end, Please note: There is no such thing as a stupid question!

3. Deliverables • Achieving Delegation • The dynamics of ENUM • Numbering issues • NAPTR – More than just access to ‘old world’ telephone numbers • Moving from technology trial to operational reality • Defining VoIP • What is the regulatory debate about? • Getting the regulatory focus right • Remarks • See it live! • Concluding remarks

4. ENUM Hierarchy, Delegation and Registrars

5. ENUM Hierarchy, Delegation and Registrars The ENUM system (a.k.a., “golden tree”) has several levels commonly referred to as Tiers The reference to “golden” for the tree structure is in place in order to ensure against erroneous operation and data or information flow As DNS technology is proven to be extremely scalable, service providers, enterprises and registrars may also act as private solution providers within the ENUM environment The following slide give a visible display of the logical hierarchies as unfolding in many countries today

6. The ENUM Tiers • Tier 0 • Top Level Domain: e164.arpa • Tier 1 • Country Delegation (e.g., Ireland/+353 = 3.5.3.e164.arpa) • Tier 2 • DNS Name Servers containing NAPTR records

7. Delegation Overview – Country to Regional Registry • Delegation requests are sent to Regional Internet Registry (RIR) • RIRs (ARIN / RIPE NCC / APNIC/LACNIC/AfriNIC) • RIR acknowledges request • RIR announces request • To the public • On website • To the ITU TSB • RIR tracks comments during a 60 working day period • Pending ITU-T approval, delegation may proceed.

8. Achieving Delegation – Finding Tier 0 • National Government or ministries would generally approach the ITU-Telecommunications Standardization Bureau along with their regional Internet Registries in order to apply for a trial or permanent .e164.arpa delegation. ITU - TSB ARIN / RIPE NCC / APNIC/LACNIC/AfriNIC IETF/IAB Country Registry CC.e164.arpa USA/NANP CC1 LLC Tier 1

9. Trial Hierarchy – Developing Stakeholders • Getting through a delegation and establishing a trial for ENUM hierarchies and players would appear as follows: • So where’s the competition? Where’s the money? Where’s the consumer? Tier 0 Country Registry e164.arpa Tier 1 USA/NANP CC1 LLC Tier 2 Registrar Y Registrar Z Registrar X

10. Operational Hierarchy • It is perceived that the fully operational ENUM hierarchy will look like this: Tier 0 Country Registry e164.arpa Tier 1 Competition space USA/NANP CC1 LLC Tier 1 Tier 2 Registrar Y Registrar Z Registrar X Small ISP Medium ASP Large Enterprise ENUM Registrants (End Users/Customers)

11. Competition Space – Zero Sum to Positive Sum? • Competition is likely exist between the following ENUM entities: • Tier 2 registrars or Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) • Small Internet Service Providers • Application Service Providers (ASPs) • Medium to large enterprises (Supply Chain Partners) • Secure Authentication providers / Enterprise Security Providers

12. How will this work? – Competitive Advantage Differentiation (Non-Price Value) Competitive Advantage Lower Cost

13. General Stakeholders • ITU and RIRs • National Governments • Regulatory Authorities • Tier 1 Registry • Tier 2 Registrars • ISPs • ASPs • Consumers • Large Enterprises • Equipment Vendors • Security Agencies

14. The Dynamics of ENUM

15. Problem: Address Complexity +1 214 786 4491 http:www.jonathangreene.localisp.net email:jonathan.greene@localisp.net +1 214 891 0495 sip:jonathan.greene@mcisip.net +1 214 890 6143 im:jonathan.greene@messaging.net

16. Problem: IP Addresses Not Dialable http:www.jonathangreene.localisp.net Over a billion wireless and wireline customer devices with keypads email:jonathan.greene@localisp.net sip:jonathan.greene@mcisip.net im:jonathan.greene@messaging.net

17. ENUM Simplified • Take a phone number • Turn it into a domain • Ask the DNS • Return a list of URI’s +353-1-506-9888 8.8.8.9.6.0.5.1.3.5.3.e164.arpa DNS mailto:robert.schafer@mci.com sip:robert.schafer@mci.com

18. TIER 1 Basic ENUM DNS Architecture Tier 0 is the Top Level Domain, e164.arpa The “Global” ENUM Tier TIER 0 Each Country Code will have its own Tier 1 registry The “National” ENUM Tier Specific information linked to each telephone number will be stored by service providers at the Tier 2 level The “Competitive” ENUM Tier … … TIER 2 TIER 2 TIER 2

19. Privacy and Security • Unlike PSTN translations, The DNS is PUBLIC SPACE! • Solution is proxy addressing for ENUM records • The person being contacted should decide: • to whom they wish to communicate • how they wish to communicate • when they wish to communicate • MCI customer portal and enhanced network capabilities are ideally suited to work with ENUM • EPP provides a secure provisioning mechanism

20. Provisioning • Utilisation of EPP – Extensible Provisioning Protocol will assist registrars retain secure and efficient interworking with Tier 1 and End-Users of ENUM • EPP supports the retrieval, creation, deletion and renewal of XML data elements in the / for the NAPTR records • The extensions to the EPP for ENUM consist of XML data for E.164 domain names and for the NAPTR fields: • Order • Preference • Flags • Service • Regular Expression • Replacement

21. +1-972-7295798 DNS ENUM Enabled Applications ENUM DNS Available Customer Profile Applications Translation to Internet Address(es) +1-877-925-6987 Internet mail:\\d.jones@joneselectronicsinc.com fax:\\davidjones@joneselectronicsinc.com im:\\drjones@joneselectronicsinc.com +1-202-924-9597 http:\\www.joneselectronicsinc.com +1-214-891-0495

22. ENUM Value - Bridging VoIP Islands ENUM DNS abc.globalip.com xyz.sipnet.com SIP SIP server server +1214 891 0495 sip:1243679343010@xyz.sipnet.com Session sip:axelm@globalip.com

23. ENUM delegations approved Austria (43) China (86) Sweden (46) UK (44) Germany (49) Singapore (65) UAE (971) Iceland (354) Korea(82) Romania (40) Ascension (247) Netherlands (31) Ireland (353) Switzerland (41) Poland (48) Finland(358) Brazil (55) Liechtenstein (423) Japan (82) Armenia(374) France (33) Czech Republic (420) Norway (47) Slovak Republic (421) St Helena (290) Hungary (36) Australia (61) Taiwan (886)

24. UK ENUM Trial • MCI joined Country Code 44 UK ENUM trial in 2003 • Trial ended late 2003 and trial report is now in the public domain • MCI participated as an application service provider, using existing MCI telephone numbers in Country Code 44 to demonstrate ENUM support for IP connectivity independent of the PSTN • Trial results collected provide information and experiences on how to implement ENUM in the commercial phase

25. UK ENUM Trial Application-SIP Service Interworking Calling Party Called Party +441223381002 customeraddress SIP Server Service Provider X Service Provider Y Proxy Server sip:mciukenum2@nvta.globalip.com Internet ENUM DNS

26. Ireland ENUM Trial • MCI joined Irish ENUM Trial Group for Country Code 353 in 2004. This trial is just now concluding • MCI participated as a Tier 2 Provider using existing Country Code 353 MCI telephone numbers to explore provisioning and interface capabilities with the Irish Tier 1 registry • The Irish trial has now moved to construct a Policy Advisory Board in order to move the trial to production phase

27. What about the U.S.? U.S. Government supports ENUM! • CC1 ENUM Limited Liability Company • CC1 ENUM LLC formed last year • RFP for Tier 1 Registry Management • Karen Mulberry-MCI is Chairman • Technical Advisory Committee • Website www.enumllc.com • U.S. ENUM Forum • Forum developing U.S. requirements • Robert Schafer-MCI is Administrator • Website www.enumf.org

28. MCI and ENUM • ENUM provides a simple way around existing Internet address complexity using an address customers are already familiar with – telephone numbers • MCI’s global network is well positioned to implement ENUM with existing and new services. ENUM nicely complements MCI’s robust network management and security platform • ENUM will support customer communications on a global scale while increasing the degree of control they have over how and when, and to whom they communicate

29. What will ENUM do? • ENUM can translate a familiar telephone number into any Internet address, working behind the scenes to simplify customer communications • ENUM will support new customer applications, including find me/follow me, simple integrated conferencing, and directory services • ENUM gives customers WORLDWIDE address translation capability, while safeguarding specific customer addresses from widespread exposure when combined with MCI’s global network

30. Numbering Issues

31. Numbering Some common issues: • Numbering is viewed as a scarce national resource • Users dial E.164 numbers • Use of corporate dial plans • Numbering can be allocated based on population demographics • Numbering rules can detract from mobility • Need for and fear of nomadic numbers

32. Fostering Good Numbering Policy for ENUM While numbering is important to nations unnecessary regulation can lead to stymied investment opportunities and lack of willingness to deploy new innovative services. Good numbering policies for ENUM: • Regulators should allow ubiquitous access for all (national) publicly accessible numbers • Pay heed to existing legal requirements including emergency service access • Allow competition to develop by only regulating where regulation is needed e.g. introduction of new nomadic number ranges (UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria) • Preserving the interests of users while not impeding innovation and potential future markets

33. NAPTR – More than just voice communication

34. NAPTR - Naming Authority Pointer Record NAPTR – Naming Authority Pointer Record • What is a NAPTR? • A NAPTR is the logical “key” or service resource record residing with the Tier 2 registrar • Where are NAPTRs located? • The NAPTR is found via the DNS hierarchy, Tier 2 registry • What is the NAPTR function? • The NAPTR is the logical record that represents End User/Customer routing or desired choice of communications

35. NAPTR – Looks like what? **Recommend use of proxies for privacy reasons **

36. Common mistakes • ENUM and NAPTRs are far more powerful and operate over and above the simple telephone network addressing we are all accustomed to in the Telephony world (See slide 39). Now we have control to nominate methods of communication • If Plain Old Telephone numbers ever become obsolete or complementary the NAPTR would provide the required “glue” for seamless convergence

37. Other services powered by ENUM/NAPTR • NAPTRs can point to various other service types such as: • SIP • Presence • Email • MMS • SMS • EMS • Fax • H.323 • Conferencing [Integrated]

38. Moving from technology trial to operational reality?

39. 1. Making a trial a functional reality Problem 1 - Competition • Tier 1 Registry selection, only one organisation can run the Tier 1 registry thus ensuring the registry/registrar model, in a given nation state • Tier 2 Registrars interact with and provide services to consumers, deciding on items such as: • Service levels • Service functionality • Pricing • Efficiency • Reach • Segmentation of Market • Target market • Position of Registrar (Mass Market, Enterprise, Wholesale)

40. 2. Making a trial a functional reality Problem 2 – Standardisation • Maintaining standard public ENUM implementations in order to facilitate public/national markets • Maintaining requirements to foster interoperable “Private ENUM” so that communications can co-exist outside closed enterprises with private dial plans or secure communications platforms/arrangements • Thus the selection of the .e164.arpa for telephone numbers. (ARPA - Address and Routing Parameters Area) • General list of issues can be found in IETF RFCs

41. 3. Making a trial a functional reality Problem 3 – Alternative Dial Plans • Users rarely dial normal dial plans on corporate networks • Not all numbers dialed are E.164 numbers • Numbering policies are divergent based on the country of operation • Natural domestic (mass market) consumers are used to dialing plans • Dial plan information can/could be easily resolved using ENUM technology

42. 4. Making a trial a functional reality Problem 4 – Registry / Registrar logic • A Registry runs the DNS server for a specific name space • A Registrar facilitates customers who want to have things registered but not directly with the registry • Registry and Registrar operations may co-exist at Tier 2 level • Registrars update, change or cancel customer data on the Registry and would be responsible for billing and other service issues • Registries would interact with the DNS under each Country Code, in a country according to national/local policy

43. 5. Making a trial a functional reality Problem 5 – Services Authentication and Provision Customers / End-Users may choose service from a multitude of Tier 2 / service providers for: • email • Sip/VoIP • Telephony • Web homepage • Many more … ENUM serves to announce the location of the service provided to the consumer regardless of who the underlying service provider actually is National legislation may need amendment in order to foster greater electronically enabled sign-up and authentication in a converging world, while remaining compliant with Data Protection and Privacy rules

44. ENUM Clearly is: • Not about Carrier Selection or Carrier Pre-Selection • It is the selection/nomination of services within a given service space • Not about telco bypass or substitution • It is a viable and efficient alternative to circuit switched technology • Not about Number Portability • It is a more efficient and broader IP address mechanism • Not about changing national numbering plans • It is conformant with the ITU-T E.164 standard • It is conformant with national numbering administration and policies It fully respects rights and prerogatives of national states and jurisdictions

45. Regulation: How Is VoIP Defined by Regulators?

46. There is No Universally Accepted Definition of VoIP • ITU Study Group 2 Has Developed Consensus on Key Concept: • IP Telephony: IP is an acronym for Internet Protocol. It is a communications protocol developed to support a packet switched network. The protocol has been developed by the IETF. IP telephony is the exchange of information primarily in the form of speech that utilizes a mechanism known as Internet Protocol. Internet telephony and VoIP are specific subsets of IP telephony. • Internet Telephony: The combination of the term ‘Internet’ with the term telephony is seen as inappropriate. The Internet offers many capabilities to users including the ability to carry bi-directional speech in real-time or near real time. We consider this to be an intrinsic capability of the Internet and not a telecommunications service. • Voice over IP (VoIP) – IP telephony in which the principal transmission network or networks are private managed, IP-based networks of any type, such as Voice-over-frame relay; voice over cable; voice-over-DSL, etc. • WTO Initiatives – “Devil in the Details”

47. OECD Working Party on Telecom & Information Services Policies - “Trends in IP Technology: Their Impact on the Traditional Telephony Carrier World” (March 2002): Key Conclusions: • “Given the sheer size of the traditional telephony infrastructures it is reasonable to anticipate that integrated IP-based voice applications and traditional telephony may co-exist for many years…” • “VoIP will be sold on feature functionality and the value of applications within which it has been integrated rather than purely on the traditional view of ‘cost per minute’ to the end user...…IP-based applications will foster new rather than replacement communications…”

48. European Commission Policy • 1998 EC Notice concluded that Internet voice services do not constitute voice telephony UNLESS: • They are offered commercially and separately to the public as voice services; • They are offered to and from PSTN termination points; and • They are offered in real time at the same level of speech quality and reliability as is offered by the PSTN. • January 2001 communication reaffirmed the 1998 position observing, however, that the quality of IP telephony over a single network has improved. • VoIP is not defined by new EC Communications Market Definition Recommendation issued in February 2003.

49. ENUM is far more than VoIP however, Voice is component of ENUM! Competition is the most effective form of regulation in this developing area

50. ENUM Applications and Network at Work Demonstration in collaboration with AG Projects Mr. Adrian Georgescu, Founder and CEO AG Projects