Hi Everyone:
I like to refer to a contribution - R. Scholl, "RFI: Requirements for Very Large Scale E.164 -> IP Database", ETSI EP TIPHON 9, Portland, 31 Aug.-03 Sept 1998.
The findings of this contribution can be interesting to the ITU-T SG16 as well. For example, "...The name space will eventually be completely flat. .. A flat name space (or number space) facilitates number portability...This is contrary to the hierarchical DNS or X.500 name sapce. .. a flat name space does not necessarily mean a flat database architecture. .."
As we go forward for the H.323 addressing schemes, this paper might also provide us some help in that direction.
Regards,
Radhika R. Roy AT&T
From: Pete Cordell[SMTP:pete.cordell@BT-SYS.BT.CO.UK] Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 2:37 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: No root node
Santo,
In general, to a first order approximation, I would expect a fully meshed arrangement of 'country' border elements. However I would see the fine detail of the structure being down to who people have arrangements for resolving addresses with. For example, BT might go to AT+T to resolve all North and South American numbers, and AT+T might come to BT for all European numbers. I could also see that opportunistic companies could set up global clearing houses that would handle address translation for outfits that haven't been able to establish their own knowledge of all the borders such as ISPs, or corporates. This would look like a root node to the people that used it, but it would be used purely as a commercial expedient and not mandated by the way the standard works.
On the issue of France moving its entry point to Lyon for the week, I think we have to allow France to have more than one entry point. After all, Paris could all of a sudden slide into the Seine, and the press, if nobody else, would still want to make calls into France to find out what's going on. By having multiple entry points, the French can turn off their Paris BE for a while and switch on their Lyon one, and if the data didn't propagate around the system for a while it wouldn't really matter too much.
Pete
Pete Cordell BT Labs E-Mail: pete.cordell@bt-sys.bt.co.uk Tel: +44 1473 646436 Fax: +44 1473 645499 =================================
From: Santo Wiryaman[SMTP:swiryaman@VIDEOSERVER.COM] Sent: 04 September 1998 17:29 To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: No root node
Hi All,
I am not at all opposed to eliminating the root domain. A couple of questions for Pete and the group:
Are you suggesting that at the national level the border elementsare fully meshed together, or alternatively arranged in a big ring as Radhika is suggesting? 2. If so, when a new country "goes on-line" endpoints in the new country would not be reachable until the information is propagated in this fully meshed database (or inserted in the ring). 3. Same if, say France, had to switch its National H.323 Border
Element
from Paris to Lyons for one week. 4. Are you open to the idea of a global clearing house to resolve the address of border elements of countries which are currently not listed in the fully-meshed database.
Regards,
Santo Wiryaman Videoserver
From: Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell@BT-SYS.BT.CO.UK] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 10:20 AM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: No root node
Dear All,
Apologies for not being on the last call, but...
I feel one really important issue with Santo's contribution is that we must remove the root domain. Having such a concept would give politicians and lawyers far too much work!!! I believe the notes that I put forward would allow the root node to be removed, and based on comments I heard from Jim, I believe what he is proposing would allow this too.
Regards,
Pete
Pete Cordell BT Labs E-Mail: pete.cordell@bt-sys.bt.co.uk Tel: +44 1473 646436 Fax: +44 1473 645499 =================================