Who are freedomnet ? Most things on the website are under construction? Do they manage enum listings? Kind Regards, Craig Spiers - Network Manager Solarix Limited DDI: +64 9 974 4753 | FAX: +64 9 523 8057 FAULTS: 0800 89 41 42 MOB: +64 21 857 183 | email: craig.spiers(a)staff.solarix.co.nz The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. -----Original Message----- From: James Jones [mailto:james(a)freedomnet.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 10:37 a.m. To: Barry Murphy Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] enum for now yes On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Barry Murphy wrote:

Could it be your secondary DNS is your DSL circuit?

root(a)corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup enum2.freedomnet.co.nz Server: 60.234.1.1 Address: 60.234.1.1#53

Non-authoritative answer: Name: enum2.freedomnet.co.nz Address: 219.89.206.239

root(a)corona:/etc/namedb# nslookup 219.89.206.239 Server: 60.234.1.1 Address: 60.234.1.1#53

Non-authoritative answer: 239.206.89.219.in-addr.arpa name = 219-89-206-239.adsl.xtra.co.nz.

Barry

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:30:35 +1300, "James Jones" wrote:

...

oops..sent correction

On 2008-12-23, at 09:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:

...

On 23/12/2008 5:34, "David Farrar" wrote:

...

There's been some discussions and trials in the past between InternetNZ and the Telco Carrier Forum. As far as I know there are no current plans to delegate the domain.

It is worth noting that the ITU will only delegate the domain if instructed to by the MED, so the MED would need to be satisfied with whomever is proposed to operate it.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough:

http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/enum-announce/2008/msg00011

...

.html

Impressive nameserver diversity in that proposal:

nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz nserver: enum1.freedomnet.co.nz

Joe _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- James Jones Managing Director Freedom Networks +64 6 3678300 +1 413 771 1402 james(a)freedomnet.co.nz _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:

for now yes

In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual hosting servers in the states, at a single provider. I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them, up and down the country on many different networks. -- Nathan Ward

If we get the allocation I will be adding several servers in wellington and auckland. Then from that I would like to be setup up some VoIP exchange points most likely starting in APE and WIX. Freedom Networks is a new company. We are going to be lauching a new VoIP at the end of Jan. If some of you remember I spoke at NZNOG07 on Open Source VoIP in Carrier Enviorments. If still want to know more about me check out http://www.linkedin.com/in/jjones341 On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:

On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:

...

for now yes

In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual hosting servers in the states, at a single provider.

I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them, up and down the country on many different networks.

-- Nathan Ward

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- James Jones Managing Director Freedom Networks +64 6 3678300 +1 413 771 1402 james(a)freedomnet.co.nz

Just to continue what Mark said, I am not really expecting for this to get approved. I am hoping it will. If anything maybe it will bring more discussion around enum and using VoIP in New Zealand. On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Mark Foster wrote:

On Wed, December 24, 2008 12:13 pm, Nathan Ward wrote:

...

On 24/12/2008, at 10:37 AM, James Jones wrote:

...

for now yes

In addition, the nameservers for freedomnet.co.nz are both on virtual hosting servers in the states, at a single provider.

I would suggest putting at least one of your DNS servers (for all the domains in the chain, not just the ones you propose to be authoritative for 4.6.e164.arpa.) in NZ. Preferably several of them, up and down the country on many different networks.

Before NZNOG'rs start ripping James to bits, perhaps he and others need to review http://www.internetnz.net.nz/projects/enum/index.html/ and then ask the question... why isn't the zone already delegated somewhere? And if it's to be delegated, shouldn't it be to someone involved in the project?

Pointing the finger at the holes in James's setup/application is somewhat redundant, if James is unlikely to be approved as DNS host by MED/thepowersthatbe on the grounds of a longer-standing ENUM Taskforce for the NZ range, for starters...

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- James Jones Managing Director Freedom Networks +64 6 3678300 +1 413 771 1402 james(a)freedomnet.co.nz

On 29/12/2008, at 10:38 AM, Steve Phillips wrote:

By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect quiet you'll stop people from complaining about it.

Premature conclusion not supported by facts available.

(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/ the DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)

There was a time when that was a very scary suggestion. InternetNZ hasn't always acted in the best interests of Industry, and there are plenty of commercial entities providing service for the public good of others, sometimes even without reward. regards Peter Mott Swizzle | Wholesale Hosted Servers +64 21 279 4995 -/-

On 29 Dec 2008, at 01:33, David Farrar wrote:

From: Steve Phillips [mailto:steve(a)focb.co.nz]

...

(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)

I would not get overly concerned.

To put the problem space into context, how much of the +64 number range can be reached using SIP, or any other URI that you might want to publish under 4.6.e164.arpa? I ask because it seems to me that the only plausible way that enum will be used is as part of a bottom-up process, through individual subscribers who want to make themselves reachable in ways other than through their telco. However, so long as telcos maintain effective control over the E.164 number plan and have no commercial reason to modify their existing interconnect tariffs (or to allow their subscribers to be called in ways that don't use their network) it seems clear that such a thing will never happen. Am I missing something, or is enum a nice technical solution which can, almost by definition, never be deployed? Joe

On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 08:49 +1300, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:

On 30/12/2008, at 7:56 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

...

Am I missing something, or is enum a nice technical solution which can, almost by definition, never be deployed?

enum itself can easily be deployed: there's no reason an alternative enum registry couldn't be built under e164.*.nz without needing any permission from anyone.

You're correct, it can be easily deployed - I had a test bed e.164 zone while I was doing some work on ENUM a few years ago. There is also a shared secondary domain that anyone can register phone numbers in: http://www.e164.org/ I haven't registered any zones in e164.org yet - my crappy ADSL router locks up whenever I do ENUM lookups over it (but DNSSEC works, go figure). A replacement is on the cards.

The only drawback is that software wouldn't be preconfigured to look there, but how much software already looks at 4.6.e164.arpa anyway? I don't work with VoIP every day, so maybe e164 has been widely deployed while I wasn't looking, but I'd be surprised...

Most software that I've played with can be told which zone (or multiple zones) to look in. If you're used ENUM for internal call routing for a PBX then you'll have an internal zone as well as e164.arpa (or e164.org). Cheers! -- Andrew Ruthven Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

Perhaps the importance of phone numbers is dwindling, and enum, no matter how enthusiastically promoted, will be dragged down with them.

Hear Hear. Why anyone gets so attached to 'their' phone number (which is not really theirs, but rather their telco's) is beyond me. Maybe it's years of telco propaganda, or just that they're afraid nobody will be able to contact them if they change it - which is clearly nonsense, you just ring a few other people who know the person you're trying to ring, and ask if they have a new number for them, or read their facebook page, or send them an email, etc. These days it seems everyone has more than one telephone number, so surely they can be reached at one of many, which diminishes the importance of any single number. I really like the innovation of .tel - http://www.telnic.org/faq.html - seems a great idea to me. It certainly does seem that skype has captured the vast majority of voip end users, so I don't think there's much point trying to recapture them with something else. They just won't understand if it's harder than a couple of clicks.

Joe

Blair

enum is a method of matching PSTN numbers to the DNS space. you have to register those domains, verify those domains in regular intervals, pay those domains ... people in those countries that have working enum registries do not bother going through that hassle for no obvious benefit. the registration numbers are not significant. VOIP works perfectly without enum and i see no obvious benefit in pushing numbers in DNS when we invented DNS to make those numbers memorable ... probably i miss something though lenz On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Scott Howard wrote:

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

...

It does seem possible, however, that in this case the ship has sailed on enum. I've never seen a device marketed to users directly which uses enum, for example, but I do see them today using skype.

IMHO, enum should never become an end-user thing. Whilst that's not to say that end-user devices may not support it in the future, it make far more sense when used as a provider (VOIP or otherwise) backend in order to route calls over the best communications channel.

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Blair Harrison wrote:

...

I really like the innovation of .tel - http://www.telnic.org/faq.html - seems a great idea to me.

.tel is just yet another first-in-best-dressed top-level domain. Sure, if I manage to score scotthoward.tel then it's going to make me easy to find, but what about the thousands of other Scott Howards out there?

...

It certainly does seem that skype has captured the vast majority of voip end users, so I don't think there's much point trying to recapture them with something else. They just won't understand if it's harder than a couple of clicks.

So it needs to be made simple. Skype is NOT the answer to VOIP in any form as far as I'm concerned. It uses a proprietary protocol, and then routes your traffic via the systems of other Skype users (and of course thus also routes other peoples traffic via your system). Whilst this makes sense for P2P file transfer, it doesn't make any sense for comms.

VOIP/SIP is taking off in many different ways in many countries - and the real win comes when it _is_ transparent to the end user. Vonage in the US and and Engine/MyNetFone in Australia are examples of companies that are doing this, and in fact Vonage don't even mention the word "VOIP" on their TV ads - it's just "Phone Calls over your Broadband connection". Add in all the companies that are starting to deply the VOIP capabilities that already exist in their phone systems, plus all of the telco's who are using VOIP behind the scenes (eg, Gizmo5 allows you to reach around 11% of all US phone numbers for free via VOIP) and you're starting to get a lot of worldwide SIP users!

Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or something else...

Scott.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

On 31/12/2008, at 11:31 AM, Scott Howard wrote:

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:35 PM, lenz wrote: enum is a method of matching PSTN numbers to the DNS space.

That's like saying that DNS is in turn just a method for turning hostnames into IP addresses. Sure, that's what it does, but in practice it does a lot more than that - it plays a large part in allowing you to "find" a website.

Similarly ENUM allows you to "find" how to connect to a "PSTN" number (which of course might or might not actually be connected to PSTN).

If I tell you that my phone number is +1 408 500 0600, then without ENUM (or some other similar service) what option are you going to have to call me from your VOIP service? You're going to have to pay for an international call to that number, over the PSTN network and very probably via at least a 3-4 carriers. However if my VOIP provider (not necessarily me personally) had an ENUM record for that number then you could lookup the corresponding SIP address, and instead make a point-to-point connection.

How about I just tell you my "phone number" is freddie(a)beer.com, your software looks up "_sip._udp.beer.com. IN SRV", and places a call to freddie at the server returned by that record. It's an optimised, point-to-point connection, and it doesn't involve carrying over antiquities like PSTN phone numbers. We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others - escapes me. -- Jasper Bryant-Greene Network Engineer, Unleash ddi: +64 3 978 1222 mob: +64 21 129 9458

On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:44 +1300, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:

How about I just tell you my "phone number" is freddie(a)beer.com, your software looks up "_sip._udp.beer.com. IN SRV", and places a call to freddie at the server returned by that record. It's an optimised, point-to-point connection, and it doesn't involve carrying over antiquities like PSTN phone numbers.

Because that is a solution to a different problem. That says for a domain, you can use SIP to contact some SIP endpoint (what happens for a business? reception only?), whereas in ENUM you can have a number of different technologies associated with a "phone number". For example, SIP, H.323, email, IM, http, carrier pigeon roost, PSTN, etc. The software you're using to contact me can then work out the best common protocol to use for talking with me. This can include least call routing in the decision process as well, as already mentioned. The other useful (and also confusing) thing with ENUM is you can have regular expressions. So I could have one record for the entire number range at work which says how to translate that into the required SIP URL to contact each phone.

We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others - escapes me.

I'm still amazed at the number of (mostly small) businesses that I deal with that have ISP domain names in their email addresses. Which seems antiquated to me! -- Andrew Ruthven Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Jasper Bryant-Greene

wrote:

The technology sounds cool, but do we really want to carry over the phone numbers? Are they really that ingrained in the consciousness of everyone that we can't come up with something better?

It's not (just) about keeping phone numbers, it's about interoperability. There's over 4 Billion phone lines (wired + wireless) out there at the moment. If you can come up with something better than will still allow those 4 billion lines to easily be able to reach me (and me reach them) by giving them something as simple as a phone number then I suspect you're on the way to making a lot of money :) Until that happens, we're stuck with phone numbers, for better of worse... Scott

On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 13:14 +1300, Mark Foster wrote:

...

...

We already have identifiers on the Internet - email addresses - so why we would choose to carry over cryptic strings of digits from an antiquated system and use those for one communication medium - while continuing to use email addresses as the identifiers for others - escapes me.

I'm still amazed at the number of (mostly small) businesses that I deal with that have ISP domain names in their email addresses. Which seems antiquated to me!

What geeks like us often fail to realise is that for many people - especially small businesses - email is just a tool, it may not be central to their business (ala they may not conduct a lot of business on it, but need the means regardless) and resultantly, it's not their primary concern.

Yeah, I was more trying to reply in jest to other people replying to Jasper about email addresses not being so good for a call termination end-point.

Memorable phone numbers, on the other hand, make them readily available to everyone within reach of a telephone, which is still more people than have ready access to email. And by that I mean _right now_, not when they get home to their computers.

Totally agreed.

Enum could be fairly useful as a bridging technology, if nothing else, IMHO. And people who don't have the need for their own domain name, that don't use an ISP based address (the future of which is determined by their ISPs success or failure, and is non portable as previously observed) are using a free email address (the future of which is determined by their free mail providers success or failure, and whilst portable, is 'free' and generally has service levels to match)... tying your long term accessibility to an email address which isnt 'yours' may be as fraught with difficulty as a phone number.

(And at least with number portability, you can move your number around; much like you could a personal domain name.)

There is a number range in NZ reserved for independent services, I think it is +64 868, but that is just a vague feeling. A quick search hasn't found anything to back that up. Cheers! -- Andrew Ruthven Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.

At 06:09 a.m. 2/01/2009, Joe Abley wrote:

The problem space for businesses is surely identical to that of residences, if you consider the core functionality to be "signal a method to contact a particular person or role".

sip:noc(a)isc.org calls phones to ring on many peoples' desks; sip:jabley(a)isc.org just rings my phone. mailto:noc(a)isc.org sends mail in a way that those same people can see it; mailto:jabley(a)isc.org is for contacting just me. If we concede that we are not yet living in the future and hence need a "front desk number", no doubt we can think up a generic role for that, info(a)isc.org or somehting.

Perspectives which start from the basis of "how do I establish a voice connection to +1 519 670 9327" seem antiquated to me. Remove the baggage, and it's "how has Joe signalled that I should contact him?" The fact that we will no doubt need to maintain E.164 hooks into the system for the benefit of people who can't use any identifier other than a phone number does not mean that the directory service needs to revolve around arbitrary numeric strings.

Fair point Joe if you were starting with a clean sheet of paper. But we're not. Theres a largish installed base of legacy client devices that need to be accommodated. A while ago, when an IT Manager, part of my role was to look after a PABX and system of some 3k phones. The total call spent was then around $150k, of which 25% was fax (Internet was at the time about $30K and included CityNet). Now the rough rule is that 80% of calls were local. ie in Wellington. So an effective mechanism to remove the local calls would have been attractive to me. It was worth roughly $120k pa. Apply that to the top 50 businesses in WLG and theres a potential saving of $6M. This has a multiplier effect in the economy typically of 5:1, often as high as 7:1, but potentially the economic impact is $30M pa. So what I would be looking for is not a new total solution, but an add on that allows my existing gear to say "Fred has called this number,(name whatever), do I know where this is, or should I bomb off to the PSTN ?" It has to be REAL simple and easy and transparent to the end user. Anyone who has ever been involved in a PABX cut over or replacement and staff training, will explain that to many folks, even phone numbers and simple phone functionality is a challenge. (how many people stuff up call transfers in your office). And remember that there are folks with businesses that enjoy good profits off the current situation who might not particularly like VoIP peering. As a complete aside, Tony Randle and I often looked at how we could link PABXs using fiber E1 modems and DNSS. Sadly we both moved jobs and never got it done. CityLink did do a lot of dark fiber where there were E1 links for just this purpose (even for Telecom and Telstra), but it was generally internal to an organisation. There was no device that would have allowed organisations to join a mutual peering switch on a subscription basis. Well there was but it had big $ signs - well above the radar. VoIP has potentially changed this. Rich ps - I already have what I wanted. My VoIP provider gives free local calls. I registered for WLG and AKL and programmed my dial out codes as 4 and 9, and advertise local numbers in both cities.

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

Scott Howard wrote:

...

Clearly the end result is the same - my phone rings - but without ENUM or something similar there is no optimization of the path taken, and the call is almost certainly going to leave the TCP network and go through at least 2 SIP-SS7 translations - and with a much higher cost both to you and to me!

Let's say one in a hundred calls I make could by via Public ENUM. I pay about AU$3/hr to

That number could be so much higher - at least if the big players joined in. Based on http://gizmo5.com/pc/backdoor/ over 10% of all calls would be a definite possibility _today_, and that number is only going to get bigger over time.

call your US number. Is the cost of having a server setup at home to save AU$3 once in a hundred calls (for us that's a few months) really worth it?

As I said earlier, I don't see ENUM(*) as a home-user thing - it's a VOIP provider thing. How many calls go out of Internode (or MNF or Vonage or any other provider) today that traverse the PSTN network only to terminate on another VOIP providers system? At what cost? Sure, if someone wants to come out with an ATA that does ENUM(*) then bonus to the people that use it - they get free calls to some people (probably along with several NAT-traversal issues), but the real win here is for the providers. The real question here is whether any of the VOIP providers want to try and turn SIP-based VOIP into a real network, or if they just want to leave it as the technology for the end-points, with PSTN looking after the routing. Historically simply doing the latter made sense, but as critical mass changes towards VOIP then avoiding PSTN for inter-provider calls makes far more sense. Private peering is a start, but even that is still the equivalent of filtering much of the worlds email through UUCP because it's easier than using SMTP everywhere... (*) And by ENUM I mean "ENUM or something that works towards the same goal", not necessarily RFC3761-based ENUM. Scott.

At 02:04 p.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:

As I said earlier, I don't see ENUM(*) as a home-user thing - it's a VOIP provider thing. How many calls go out of Internode (or MNF or Vonage or any other provider) today that traverse the PSTN network only to terminate on another VOIP providers system? At what cost?

Sure, if someone wants to come out with an ATA that does ENUM(*) then bonus to the people that use it - they get free calls to some people (probably along with several NAT-traversal issues), but the real win here is for the providers.

Sorry - I do see VoIP peering as an end user thing and I'd love my ATAs to be able to peer. If they can't then maybe my VoIP provider would offer that to me as a service. I'm a small business (me + one part-timer) yet we use 20+ lines and 5 or 6 ISPs. The ISPs are used depending on their peering reach on a job-by-job basis and on their network type and reach. Equally, I use the VoIP with either AKl or WLG numbers, because I get local calls for free. ie I do a peer connection. My clients often use cell phones for 10-12 hours a day non-stop, or go hunting for a landline (or sidle up to my van and borrow a line). Sometimes I freight an ATA overseas or to another location, just so they can call me (using AKL numbers) for free. (we use ATAs because they give analog outputs to go into hybrids) What I'm leading to is that end users have this pressure for lower costs and will find solutions, even if they are somewhat ad hoc. What we are talking about is adding structure and interoperability to this, so that we don't see a huge proliferation in ad hoc solutions. When WIX was first mooted in '96-97, the I stood for Information, not Internet. It was envisaged that internetworking would take place including, voice and video. The initial voice discussions were about linking PABXs with E1 and DNSS (if I recall correctly). As an Internetworking group we should try and solve this issue (VoIP Peering), otherwise users will have all sorts of alternative ad hoc solutions to get voice between organisations and by passing the PSTN. The call volumes may be low, but NZ also used to hang off one 9700bps modem. And so did Australia.

On 30/12/2008 4:19, "Joe Abley" wrote: [...]

I was not involved, but I hear that in North America there was a tremendous amount of layer-9 activity surrounding the creation of a testbed registry for 1.e164.arpa -- presumably far more than would ever be required for 4.6.e164.arpa, given that +1 includes several countries. The testbed registry was created, at CIRA in Ottawa. As far as I know, it remains empty, some years later.

The original approval was for a temporary technical trial. I seem to remember the delegation being removed at the end of the trial. 1.e164.arpa doesn't appear to be delegated at the moment. Regards, Leo

To quote myself from before.

If we get the allocation I will be adding several servers in wellington and auckland. Then from that I would like to be setup up some VoIP exchange points most likely starting in APE and WIX.

I want this to be an open and fair system. InternetNZ has been sitting on this for two years, and this looks like they have not moved forward on the schedule for the task force. If they have not why haven't they applied for the allocation. I believe this is something that can not just be left idle. Someone needs to lead the way if we really want to do something new and special with telecommunications in this country.I will be contacting MED after the first of the year. I do have a few contacts there.We need to work together and not slam people who take something on!!! I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from is really counterproductive. On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:33 PM, David Farrar wrote:

From: Steve Phillips [mailto:steve(a)focb.co.nz]

...

(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the DNC/MED just to stop people doing things like this)

I would not get overly concerned. While I can't speak for MED, my recollection of their policy is that any application for the delegation will be referred by MED to either the TCF or NAD (basically the Telcos) for comment, and it is highly unlikely any delegation will be agreed to unless they agree. If they did agree, then a recommendation would probably go to the Minister, and if he approves would the ITU be told to approve the delegation.

So it is not just a matter of first in first served.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- James Jones Managing Director Freedom Networks +64 6 3678300 +1 413 771 1402 james(a)freedomnet.co.nz

James Jones wrote: [snip random drivel]

I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from is really counterproductive.

I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions [quote] Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the 4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can point towards you as you asked? [/quote] By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect quiet you'll stop people from complaining about it. nice. (personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this) -- Steve. PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or your company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to obtain the NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed commercial purposes.

I have not finish working out the details. I will be contacting MED next week to start discussion if it is posiible. On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:01 PM, James Jones wrote:

I believe I have said serveral time in the thread I want to it be an open system!!!!

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Steve Phillips wrote:

...

James Jones wrote: [snip random drivel]

...

I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from is really counterproductive.

I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions

[quote] Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the 4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can point towards you as you asked? [/quote]

By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect quiet you'll stop people from complaining about it.

nice.

(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this)

-- Steve.

PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or your company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to obtain the NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed commercial purposes.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- James Jones Managing Director Freedom Networks +64 6 3678300 +1 413 771 1402 james(a)freedomnet.co.nz

-- James Jones Managing Director Freedom Networks +64 6 3678300 +1 413 771 1402 james(a)freedomnet.co.nz

James Jones wrote:

I believe I have said serveral time in the thread I want to it be an open system!!!!

And 'Open System' run by a closed commercial enterprise is not un fathomable. You have also not answered any of Craigs questions, and I personally am pretty keen on knowing what the answers are as well - I'm also sure a lot of other people on this list are interested as well. Shall we start with what _exactly_ your plans are for the delegation ? (and 'an open system' is not really an answer) -- Steve. PS: I also note that your original post was sent from an Alcatel-Lucent e-mail address. Can we therefore assume that you are working along side them on this, and hence, alongside Telecom NZ ?

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Steve Phillips wrote:

...

James Jones wrote: [snip random drivel]

...

I do take offense to your comments, Steve. Anyone that know me or my company, knows I am not that selfish nor that ignorant. We are not are not hiding anything.If you really have questions and would like to know what is going on, slamming the person you need to get info from is really counterproductive. I notice you still have not answered Craigs questions

[quote] Can you let us know what exactly are you going to do now with the 4.6.e164.arpa domain now? What time frame can people use it? Are you working with anyone else MED? InternetNZ , other ISP's or is this a closed commercial enterprise that the e164 people just decided it can point towards you as you asked? [/quote]

By avoiding the question, I assume that you are intending for it to be a private commercial venture and just hope that by keeping this aspect quiet you'll stop people from complaining about it.

nice.

(personally, I think this range should be allocated to InternetNZ/the DNC/MED/Peter Mott just to stop people doing things like this)

-- Steve.

PS: I am pretty sure most of the NOG community don't know you or your company, sorry you took offence, I take offence to you trying to obtain the NZ e164 enum allocation in order to use it for undisclosed commercial purposes.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Don Gould wrote:

I'm sorry but I really feel a call to order is required here!

Certainly.

I've read over half the posts in this thread and see no reason for false accusations.

False accusations ? the thing I'm finding is that people are asking for more information and we are getting 'yes yes, we will give you the information if you ask for it !' which isn't actually giving anyone anything about the intentions behind the application. This is very typical of commercial entities (and infact, anyone trying to divert attention away from something) when they are about to do something that will not necessarily be in the publics best interest. This has been an exceedingly common tactic in the NZ Internet industry since it started. The lack of any positive from JONES JAMES F and the ability to silently sidestep any real questions on his companies intentions for the enum allocation raise warning bells in my mind. I guess you've got a different outlook. Good for you, at least you're still smiling as you get shafted.

How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?

I really don't think it will ever get used, which is probably for the best. I also think allocating/activating it with no set plan as to how this is going to be implemented is dangerous. All it would take is a reasonably large carrier (verizon ? etc..) to perform a lookup, get a response and incorrectly route a call and you'd end up with chaos (keeping in mind that this is _supposed_ to be an official way route PSTN allocated numbers via IP). How are number allocations going to be handled ? how about coping with number portability ? do we sub delegate based on the NAD ? if the NAD has control then why is a private/commercial entity looking after the allocation ? is this entity going to charge to gain access to this system (even tho its open ! yay for word games) and if so, how much and will any charges slow adoption ? oh, and answering Craigs questions would also be nice.

How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?

I dont have any ideas other than 'it should be allocated to the MED/DNC/Peter Mott in order to stop this sort of thing from happening.

Seems to me that there are people here who are just jealous that someone's trying to do something with this enum stuff.

Yup, what a wonderful conclusion you've come to. I'd just like to make sure that a system such as enum, that is seen as a standard (with a low uptake, granted) does not fall in to the hands of some crowd that will in all likely-hood exploit it to make $$, prove to me that this is NOT the case and i'll happily shut up. (and yeah, I know there are checks around the allocations and I would _hope_ that they all work swimmingly, but call be a skeptic - especially when there are names such as Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom NZ behind the application based on the original e-mail sent to the list)

How about getting this thread moving back in a positive direction rather than a pointless flame?!

I find anything questioning why a public standard falls under the control of an unknown commercial entity, in order to line someones pockets, to have a reasonably valid point. If you see this as being pointless, then feel free to use your delete button or ignore the thread. I know, doom and gloom - but I have yet to meet anyone that can predict the future and looking back after the fact and saying 'oops, we maybe shouldn't have done that' doesn't really help things move forward. The NZ Internet industry has done that too often in the past, why are we doing it again now ? -- Steve.

Don Gould wrote:

How about outlining how you'd like to see the system used in NZ?

How about putting a shout out for support for your ideas?

/me puts on his Org Committee hat I'm sure even at this late stage we could find space for an enum talk or panel discussion. Is this something that people are interested in? Anyone want to volunteer? James are you registered for the conference? Dean