2006.06.06 NANOG-NOTES CC1 ENUM LLC update
(sorry these are coming out delayed, I had to deal with an internal routing challenge for much of yesterday afternoon. --Matt) 2006.06.06 CC1 ENUM LLC IPv6 DAY http://www.ipv6day.org/ 6bone is being shut down today, on the grounds that IPv6 is live and commercial, based on Jeordi's findings. Quotes slide, link to page you can register your apps on... Moderator for second session, Vish from Netflix, member of program committee. couple of topics to talk about; will start off with Karen Mulberry from Neustar talking about the US ENUM trial This is her first NANOG, very informative, interesting, entertaining. CC1 ENUM LLC --what is it? some background: north american numbering plan, 19 countries. formed sept 2004 by industry CC1 shared by 19 countries? US and canada and others. LLC obtained the CC1 ENUM trial delegation in Feb 2006 1 exists at RIPE, points to a server in Canada, waiting for the rest to happen. USG "guiding principle" and canadian government and carribean--interoperate, protect privacy, foster innovation, promote competition. US Trial is for End User ENUM ONLY applied to FCC for numbering for trial, waiver hasn't been given yet; only regional numbers, no 800, toll free, or other non-geo numbers used during trial No testing in enum.arpa? of carrier enum. CC1 ENUM trial test service as interface within CC1, specifically in US CIRA will host the temporary Tier 1 registry Each CC1 country must opt into ENUM trial, gets their own Tier 1 registry CIRA just handles 800 area codes for CC1 for US Canada itself has a trial committee, they are preparing their own corp. to handle Canada. And Jamaica is going to do their own. US Trial, TPAC is committee of trial participants, will produce trial results. Each country will do their own Tier 1B registry Trial roles--a number identified; Tier1B is a subset of a Tier1 registry Tier2 provider. Local exchange provider has to provide... [wow, slide went fast] Trial in 3 phases. registry infrastructure registry/registrar interface application testing phase 2 is under development; phase 3 has some proposals. Phase 1 is underway. TPAC (trial committee) -- 11 members signed MOU developed documents thus far TPAC US trial estimated timeline phase 1: registry infrastructure late june/july, lasts 2 months, starts after FCC grants waiver phase 2: registry/registrar interface expected to start aug, lasts 2 months depends on when phase 1 ends, depends on FCC waiver phase 3 applications later this fall CC1 timeline as of march 2006 [eyechart slide, good luck reading it.] By Q4 2006, an RFP will be issued for commercial tier1 and tier1B registries for CC1, goal to go live mid 2007. commercial operations 2 RFPs tier 1A (for all CC1) tier 1B for US expect to see the RFPs Q3/Q4 2006, beta late next year. Challenges facing enum defining the global standard for Carrier/Infrastructure /Operator/Provider ENUM Protecting end user security and privacy managing opt in requirements ensuring verification and authentication integrating domestic/global policy mandates. how do we integrate what happens in the US with the rest of the world. CC1 ENUM info resources CC1 ENUM LLC http://www.enumllc.com/ US ENUM Forum http://www.enum-forum.org/ Canadian ENUM Working Group http://www.enumorg.ca/ Q: What about bringing carrier/operator enum to IETF forum? A: working on it -- there was an announcement yesterday in regards to that. Moving on to next speaker now.
On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
(sorry these are coming out delayed, I had to deal with an internal routing challenge for much of yesterday afternoon. --Matt)
I think I speak for the whole list when we say you have absolutely NO reason to apologize, Matt. In fact, I think we'll nominate you for "Most Useful Meeting Attendee." :) -- TTFN, patrick
Tell you what -- I'd love to see this for every meeting, in some sore of official capacity. Reminds be of Stan's notes from the regional techs meetings.. On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
(sorry these are coming out delayed, I had to deal with an internal routing challenge for much of yesterday afternoon. --Matt)
I think I speak for the whole list when we say you have absolutely NO reason to apologize, Matt.
In fact, I think we'll nominate you for "Most Useful Meeting Attendee." :)
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Tell you what -- I'd love to see this for every meeting, in some sore of official capacity.
Seconded. I found the this especially useful as I was unable to attend this time.
This will be heresy, but... Perhaps there should be a home for this on the nanaog.org web farm? or is capturing this in the email archive 'ok' ?
On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Tell you what -- I'd love to see this for every meeting, in some sore of official capacity.
Seconded. I found the this especially useful as I was unable to attend this time.
This will be heresy, but... Perhaps there should be a home for this on the nanaog.org web farm? or is capturing this in the email archive 'ok' ?
Excellent idea, Chris. Should we push this to NANOG-futures, or is it OK to discuss here? -- TTFN, patrick
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Tell you what -- I'd love to see this for every meeting, in some sore of official capacity.
Seconded. I found the this especially useful as I was unable to attend this time.
This will be heresy, but... Perhaps there should be a home for this on the nanaog.org web farm? or is capturing this in the email archive 'ok' ?
Excellent idea, Chris.
Should we push this to NANOG-futures, or is it OK to discuss here?
punt to futures (which has a much smaller membership atleast) and probably Randy should put this on the Sterring Committee agenda for next week.
Moving thread to -futures@. NANOG@ BCC'ed. -- TTFN, patrick On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Tell you what -- I'd love to see this for every meeting, in some sore of official capacity.
Seconded. I found the this especially useful as I was unable to attend this time.
This will be heresy, but... Perhaps there should be a home for this on the nanaog.org web farm? or is capturing this in the email archive 'ok' ?
Excellent idea, Chris.
Should we push this to NANOG-futures, or is it OK to discuss here?
punt to futures (which has a much smaller membership atleast) and probably Randy should put this on the Sterring Committee agenda for next week.
I see from the archive that there is someone on this list who is a contact for sorbs.net. Please contact me offline as soon as possible. No, forty eight hours isn't going to cut it. Thanks :-) -- mailto:Neal@Layer3Arts.com // IM:layer3arts voice: 402 408 5951 cell : 402 301 9555 fax : 402 408 6902
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:12:25PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
(sorry these are coming out delayed, I had to deal with an internal routing challenge for much of yesterday afternoon. --Matt)
I think I speak for the whole list when we say you have absolutely NO reason to apologize, Matt.
In fact, I think we'll nominate you for "Most Useful Meeting Attendee." :)
I'll third, or fourth, or whatever number is current. Just because you aren't meeting your own expectations doesn't mean that you're not exceeding everyone else's. ;-) Even God rested on the seventh day after pulling six all-nighters. [OK, for the picky among you, He could only pull five, since He didn't invent Night until the second day ...] -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
(sorry these are coming out delayed, I had to deal with an internal routing challenge for much of yesterday afternoon. --Matt)
I think I speak for the whole list when we say you have absolutely NO reason to apologize, Matt.
In fact, I think we'll nominate you for "Most Useful Meeting Attendee." :)
Seconded. (Although I would love to know how Matt manages to do this...)
-- TTFN, patrick
-- Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger. -- J.R.R. Tolkien
participants (9)
-
Alex Rubenstein
-
Christopher L. Morrow
-
David Meyer
-
Joseph S D Yao
-
Matthew Petach
-
nealr
-
Patrick W. Gilmore
-
Randy Bush
-
Warren Kumari