voip, portability, and the evolution of addressing
DESCRIPTION
LNPA & Future of Numbering Working GroupsTRANSCRIPT
© 2004 AT&T, All Rights Reserved.
The world’s networking company SM
VoIP, Portability, and the Evolution of Addressing
LNPA & Future of Numbering Working Groups
April 14, 2005Presented by Penn Pfautz
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 2
• In a pre-LNP environment, call routing based on 6-digit (NPA-NXX) translation of destination number from LERG.
• In an LNP environment, call routing based on 6-digit (NPA-NXX) translation of a Location Routing Number (LRN).
PSTN Routing
RegionalNPAC SMS
CarrierLSMS
LNPSCP
Porting Carrier
SwitchNPA-NXX
Routing tables
DialedNumber
LRN
TelcordiaLERG™
industry broadcast
record updateCarrier OSS
NPA-NXXCLLI Assoc.
Trunk Selection
Trunkingdata
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 3
Problem Statement & Solution Path
• As carrier networks evolve to IP how should routing (including portability) be handled?
• SIP is signaling protocol of choice; URIs which can be resolved to IP addresses are the elements of address specification
• Unification of routing functions for all numbers (including portability) should be the objective so as to minimize service provider costs
• Evolution of voice networks to IP and IP interconnection argues for an IP-based solution – e.g. some form of ENUM which was specifically designed to map E.164 numbers into URIs
• Current ATIS PTSC NI-NI document envisions ENUM as target• Supports evolution away from code-based routing and associated limitations on
numbering resource optimization
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 4
What is ENUM?
• Provides mapping from E.164 numbers to IP resources• Defined by IETF in RFC 3761
• Telephone number as domain name
• Built on top of DNS
• Look up returns URI
• Example: +1-973-236-6797
DNS
Lookup 7.9.7.6.6.3.2.3.7.9.1.e164.arpa
sip:[email protected]: [email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 5
The Public ENUM Infrastructure
$ORIGIN e164.arpa. 3.7.9.1 IN NS nsnanp.enum.com . 4.4 IN NS sweden_enum.com .…
$ORIGIN 3.7.9.1.e164.arpa. 7.9.7.6.6.3.2 IN NS e164.att.net .8.9.7.6.6.3.2 IN NS e164.xyz.com .…
$ORIGIN 7.9.7.6.6.3.2.3.7.9.1.e164.arpa. IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "E2U+SIP" "!^.*$!sip:[email protected]!" .
e164.arpa
Tier 0 (Country Code Registry)
nsnanp.enum.com(3.7.9.1.e164.arpa)
Tier 1 (Telephone Number Registry)
e164.att.net
Tier 2 (Application Information)
International Implementation worked in IETF and ITU-T
National Implementation worked in CC1 ENUM LLC and ENUM Forum (US)
sweden_enum.com(4.4.e164.arpa)
…
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 6
ENUM Call Flow
MSC Carrier CMMSC Carrier A
Internet
794-867-5309
9.0.3.5.7.6.8.4.9.7.1.e164.arpa
DNS
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 7
Why ENUM?
• Built on fundamental IP technology – not legacy foundation• Queries for URIs will come from IP network elements• No plans exist to update existing NP architecture (e.g. TRQ1-3) to make use of
URIs
• Distributed database, not SMS download• ENUM operates at a 10-digit level obviating the need for a separate
portability correction• ENUM can support both end user and carrier provision of IP routing
info• Many VoIP providers do not directly obtain numbering resources and so, not
being code or block holders, cannot provision the NPAC or LERG• These are the carriers most likely to desire VoIP interconnection so their
exclusion significantly limits scope of solutionFCC SBCIS decision could alter this but may not given the uncertainties surrounding its
implementation (terms & costs of interconnection; qualification for the ESP exemption
• ENUM can support both carrier specific interconnection and general “Internet” interconnection
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 8
ENUM Status
• Country Code 1 ENUM LLC planning RFP for Tier 1 Registry operator to be in service mid 2006
• Country Code 1 ENUM LLC members include AT&T, GoDaddy.com, MCI, SBC Laboratories, Sprint, Verizon, and BellSouth
• ENUM in a domain other than e164.arpa can be rapidly implemented by a group of carriers should the public ENUM effort encounter difficulties
• Some wireless carriers use private ENUM for message center identification today.
• Other private ENUM implementations also exist
© 2005 AT&T, All Rights Reserved. 9
Alternatives to ENUM
• As long as code-based routing remains, more efficient to tie specification of IP Point-of-Interface to CO code or switch CLLI and let LNP function normally to identify CO Code to be used in routing
• This could be done as enhancement of LERG or via other processes