Subject: Re: [dispatch] Thoughts on SIP routing, TRIP, and ENUM (Long!)

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 03:11:08 -0400

Not a single customer I have ever talked to about TRIP ever expressed concern over authorization of identities.  Not one.  They may well have if it had been deployed, but that was not the reason it failed to get deployed, afaict.  There were a bunch of factors, including only two vendors implemented it (Acme and Cisco), it uses BGP which scared voice people, and numbers didn't aggregate as well anymore.  But really the number one reason by far was that there was no problem to solve back then.  SIP was in its infancy really, and the number of systems was small enough and un-changing enough that they could just handle it using static configuration tables and PSTN databases.  Without a real problem to solve, TRIP was dead at the starting gate.

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:30 PM
> 
> There probably any number of reasons that TRIP and others were never
> deployed but I think one of the largest reasons is the questions about
> authorization of identities. There are any number of protocols where
> organization A can tell organization B that calls to phone number X should
> be routed to server Y. Some examples are TRIP, DUNI, flavors of ENUM, VIPR,
> and so on. The issue is you need a reason that B should trust what A told
> them.
> 
> Without a good answer that question, it's hard to see how one would use
> the resulting solution.
> 
> Cullen <as an individual contributor>