https://wirevolution.com/step-8-register-your-phone-number-at-e164org/ Most of the links have died, so that idea has likely also sunset. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> To: "Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com> Cc: "VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:05:26 AM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering I am also quitely new in the industry, wondered a while about this possibility, and never realized that Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent are exactly this. I wonder about a hybrid idea, instead of using a global bridge, we would use direct end peer to end peer SIP, the list of DID->IP translation will be maintained on a public website, any DID could be added to that website by requesting a call to that DID at IP using the website, there may be a nominal listing fee, in order to maintain the website. Once in a while an automated script could download the config from the website and update local routing rules. Were this idea or alike ever implemented? legal issues? On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:25 AM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org > wrote: I think the realistic responses are going to be some combination of: 1) "Congratulations, you just invented Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent/whatever they are this week" 2) "The SIP peering exchange has been proclaimed every year since the early 2000s" 3) "This is quietly happening for years now anyway, just not in the way you've got in mind." -- Alex

On 24 Oct 2023, at 08:49, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org > wrote:

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- Hi,

I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

The service would just look like a carrier, except it would know how to reach all other participants directly with SIP, bypassing TDM land, and enabling rich media as a fringe benefit, as media would be direct between endpoints.

I have a proof of concept and am wondering who out there might be willing to do some testing.

Email me directly if interested, to talk about your network and how something like this might fit in.

Cheers,

Jawaid ---

https://www.voip-info.org/the-voice-peering-fabric/ I can't find anything on this in 15 years, so I'm guessing it didn't work out for one reason or another. Can anyone impart some history there?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops -- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

+1 enum was great stuff Here in NYC early 2000s we had Stealth doing the VPF (voice peering fabric) https://www.channelfutures.com/telephony-uc-collaboration/xo-joins-stealths-... Chris On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 10:32 AM Michael Graves via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

Every time this comes up I am reminded of ENUM, ITAD, Freenum.org and John Todd, long ago once of the brilliant people at Digium. More recently at Quad9.

Is Carrier ENUM still a thing?

Michael Graves

mgraves at mstvp.com

o: (713) 861-4005

c: (713) 201-1262

sip:mgraves at mjg.onsip.com

*From:* VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett via VoiceOps *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:29 AM *To:* Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com> *Cc:* VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

https://wirevolution.com/step-8-register-your-phone-number-at-e164org/

Most of the links have died, so that idea has likely also sunset.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------

*From: *"Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> *To: *"Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com> *Cc: *"VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:05:26 AM *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

I am also quitely new in the industry, wondered a while about this possibility, and never realized that Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent are exactly this.

I wonder about a hybrid idea, instead of using a global bridge, we would use direct end peer to end peer SIP, the list of DID->IP translation will be maintained on a public website, any DID could be added to that website by requesting a call to that DID at IP using the website, there may be a nominal listing fee, in order to maintain the website.

Once in a while an automated script could download the config from the website and update local routing rules.

Were this idea or alike ever implemented? legal issues?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:25?AM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

I think the realistic responses are going to be some combination of:

1) "Congratulations, you just invented Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent/whatever they are this week"

2) "The SIP peering exchange has been proclaimed every year since the early 2000s"

3) "This is quietly happening for years now anyway, just not in the way you've got in mind."

-- Alex

...

On 24 Oct 2023, at 08:49, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- Hi,

I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

The service would just look like a carrier, except it would know how to reach all other participants directly with SIP, bypassing TDM land, and enabling rich media as a fringe benefit, as media would be direct between endpoints.

I have a proof of concept and am wondering who out there might be willing to do some testing.

Email me directly if interested, to talk about your network and how something like this might fit in.

Cheers,

Jawaid ---

https://www.voip-info.org/the-voice-peering-fabric/ I can't find anything on this in 15 years, so I'm guessing it didn't work out for one reason or another. Can anyone impart some history there?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--

*Pinchas S. Neiman*

Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp.

845.213.1229 #2

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Maybe the signup fee, and lookup time is what killed the idea? If that's the case, we could solve it by downloading the list preemptively, for the signup we could use some cheap hosting, and instead verifying it with crypto. We could possibly cryptographically verify it by showing a STIR/SHAKEN passport that was signed by one of the major brands. All the owner needs is to call his number from a landline, capture the SIP invite and submit it to the website. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:36?AM chris <tknchris at gmail.com> wrote:

+1 enum was great stuff

Here in NYC early 2000s we had Stealth doing the VPF (voice peering fabric)

https://www.channelfutures.com/telephony-uc-collaboration/xo-joins-stealths-...

Chris

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 10:32 AM Michael Graves via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

Every time this comes up I am reminded of ENUM, ITAD, Freenum.org and John Todd, long ago once of the brilliant people at Digium. More recently at Quad9.

Is Carrier ENUM still a thing?

Michael Graves

mgraves at mstvp.com

o: (713) 861-4005

c: (713) 201-1262

sip:mgraves at mjg.onsip.com

*From:* VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett via VoiceOps *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:29 AM *To:* Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com> *Cc:* VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

https://wirevolution.com/step-8-register-your-phone-number-at-e164org/

Most of the links have died, so that idea has likely also sunset.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------

*From: *"Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> *To: *"Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com> *Cc: *"VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:05:26 AM *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

I am also quitely new in the industry, wondered a while about this possibility, and never realized that Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent are exactly this.

I wonder about a hybrid idea, instead of using a global bridge, we would use direct end peer to end peer SIP, the list of DID->IP translation will be maintained on a public website, any DID could be added to that website by requesting a call to that DID at IP using the website, there may be a nominal listing fee, in order to maintain the website.

Once in a while an automated script could download the config from the website and update local routing rules.

Were this idea or alike ever implemented? legal issues?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:25?AM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

I think the realistic responses are going to be some combination of:

1) "Congratulations, you just invented Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent/whatever they are this week"

2) "The SIP peering exchange has been proclaimed every year since the early 2000s"

3) "This is quietly happening for years now anyway, just not in the way you've got in mind."

-- Alex

...

On 24 Oct 2023, at 08:49, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- Hi,

I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

The service would just look like a carrier, except it would know how to reach all other participants directly with SIP, bypassing TDM land, and enabling rich media as a fringe benefit, as media would be direct between endpoints.

I have a proof of concept and am wondering who out there might be willing to do some testing.

Email me directly if interested, to talk about your network and how something like this might fit in.

Cheers,

Jawaid ---

https://www.voip-info.org/the-voice-peering-fabric/ I can't find anything on this in 15 years, so I'm guessing it didn't work out for one reason or another. Can anyone impart some history there?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--

*Pinchas S. Neiman*

Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp.

845.213.1229 #2

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- *Pinchas S. Neiman* Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2

There was a project, ENUMER, to put DIDs in a blockchain and an ENUM server lookup frontend to it to facilitate peering. I didn't saw many entries in the database back when it launched. I haven't looked in a while and don't remember which blockchain it was on. I believe TNS and Neustar operate a private ENUM peering service. XConnect used to but I didn't see it on their webpage when I looked today. I vaguely recall hearing that Mavenir offered a service for cellular providers to exchange HD Voice traffic between each other in the US. Like the Cable Labs ENUM peering service, I think its a private club offering only. On the Toll Free side, Teliax offers tollfree.exchange which allows RESPORGs to join directly, hand off calls between each other, and set rates. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:12?AM Ed Guy via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

Vonage was originally formed as the Minutes Exchange for voip peering.

We then spun part of the free world dialup into iPeerX around 2005; sold it to Eli Katz a few years later.

The key problems at the time were:

1. there were too few ITSP numbers to make the effort worthwhile; The exception was the cable companies which I believe had their own peering through cable labs. 2. There was fear that publishing voip addresses would lead to hacking and spam calls.

/Ed

PS. If anyone wants tickets to VON Builder next week, drop me an email. ( edguy at eguy.org)

*From: *VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Date: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:45 AM *To: *chris <tknchris at gmail.com> *Cc: *voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

Maybe the signup fee, and lookup time is what killed the idea?

If that's the case, we could solve it by downloading the list preemptively, for the signup we could use some cheap hosting, and instead verifying it with crypto.

We could possibly cryptographically verify it by showing a STIR/SHAKEN passport that was signed by one of the major brands.

All the owner needs is to call his number from a landline, capture the SIP invite and submit it to the website.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:36?AM chris <tknchris at gmail.com> wrote:

+1 enum was great stuff

Here in NYC early 2000s we had Stealth doing the VPF (voice peering fabric)

https://www.channelfutures.com/telephony-uc-collaboration/xo-joins-stealths-...

Chris

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 10:32 AM Michael Graves via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

Every time this comes up I am reminded of ENUM, ITAD, Freenum.org and John Todd, long ago once of the brilliant people at Digium. More recently at Quad9.

Is Carrier ENUM still a thing?

Michael Graves

mgraves at mstvp.com

o: (713) 861-4005

c: (713) 201-1262

sip:mgraves at mjg.onsip.com

*From:* VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett via VoiceOps *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:29 AM *To:* Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com> *Cc:* VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Subject:* Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

https://wirevolution.com/step-8-register-your-phone-number-at-e164org/

Most of the links have died, so that idea has likely also sunset.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------

*From: *"Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> *To: *"Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com> *Cc: *"VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:05:26 AM *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering

I am also quitely new in the industry, wondered a while about this possibility, and never realized that Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent are exactly this.

I wonder about a hybrid idea, instead of using a global bridge, we would use direct end peer to end peer SIP, the list of DID->IP translation will be maintained on a public website, any DID could be added to that website by requesting a call to that DID at IP using the website, there may be a nominal listing fee, in order to maintain the website.

Once in a while an automated script could download the config from the website and update local routing rules.

Were this idea or alike ever implemented? legal issues?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:25?AM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

I think the realistic responses are going to be some combination of:

1) "Congratulations, you just invented Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent/whatever they are this week"

2) "The SIP peering exchange has been proclaimed every year since the early 2000s"

3) "This is quietly happening for years now anyway, just not in the way you've got in mind."

-- Alex

...

On 24 Oct 2023, at 08:49, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- Hi,

I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

The service would just look like a carrier, except it would know how to reach all other participants directly with SIP, bypassing TDM land, and enabling rich media as a fringe benefit, as media would be direct between endpoints.

I have a proof of concept and am wondering who out there might be willing to do some testing.

Email me directly if interested, to talk about your network and how something like this might fit in.

Cheers,

Jawaid ---

https://www.voip-info.org/the-voice-peering-fabric/ I can't find anything on this in 15 years, so I'm guessing it didn't work out for one reason or another. Can anyone impart some history there?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--

*Pinchas S. Neiman*

Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp.

845.213.1229 #2

[image: Image removed by sender.]

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--

*Pinchas S. Neiman*

Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp.

845.213.1229 #2

[image: Image removed by sender.] _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Jared, This is what you were talking about I believe, https://enumer.org/ (2017 article on it https://medium.com/@emer.tech/voip-made-free-with-blockchain-introducing-enu...). I don't know much about the project and am not supporting it, just providing the information. Brian ________________________________ From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 12:07 PM To: VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering I think that, as has always been the case with these ideas, fascinating technical intricacies miss the forest for the trees; the economics just don't bear out. The time to try this was in the 2000s. Boat's gone. By this point, there has been an enormous amount of industry consolidation. A very small oligopoly of well-known CLECs feeds the VoIP industry, and they already have SIP interconnects to each other, and have had them since the Jurassic era or the Cambrian explosion or whatever. We all sit in tiny creeks massively downstream of these entities, and would save vanishingly little peering with each other (and less and less with time, given the trend of wholesale LD termination, at least in the US). -- Alex

On 24 Oct 2023, at 14:59, Jared Geiger via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

There was a project, ENUMER, to put DIDs in a blockchain and an ENUM server lookup frontend to it to facilitate peering. I didn't saw many entries in the database back when it launched. I haven't looked in a while and don't remember which blockchain it was on.

I believe TNS and Neustar operate a private ENUM peering service. XConnect used to but I didn't see it on their webpage when I looked today.

I vaguely recall hearing that Mavenir offered a service for cellular providers to exchange HD Voice traffic between each other in the US. Like the Cable Labs ENUM peering service, I think its a private club offering only.

On the Toll Free side, Teliax offers tollfree.exchange which allows RESPORGs to join directly, hand off calls between each other, and set rates.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:12?AM Ed Guy via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote: Vonage was originally formed as the Minutes Exchange for voip peering. We then spun part of the free world dialup into iPeerX around 2005; sold it to Eli Katz a few years later. The key problems at the time were: ? there were too few ITSP numbers to make the effort worthwhile; The exception was the cable companies which I believe had their own peering through cable labs. ? There was fear that publishing voip addresses would lead to hacking and spam calls. /Ed PS. If anyone wants tickets to VON Builder next week, drop me an email. (edguy at eguy.org) From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:45 AM To: chris <tknchris at gmail.com> Cc: voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering Maybe the signup fee, and lookup time is what killed the idea? If that's the case, we could solve it by downloading the list preemptively, for the signup we could use some cheap hosting, and instead verifying it with crypto. We could possibly cryptographically verify it by showing a STIR/SHAKEN passport that was signed by one of the major brands. All the owner needs is to call his number from a landline, capture the SIP invite and submit it to the website. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:36?AM chris <tknchris at gmail.com> wrote: +1 enum was great stuff Here in NYC early 2000s we had Stealth doing the VPF (voice peering fabric) https://www.channelfutures.com/telephony-uc-collaboration/xo-joins-stealths-... Chris On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 10:32 AM Michael Graves via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote: Every time this comes up I am reminded of ENUM, ITAD, Freenum.org and John Todd, long ago once of the brilliant people at Digium. More recently at Quad9. Is Carrier ENUM still a thing? Michael Graves mgraves at mstvp.com o: (713) 861-4005 c: (713) 201-1262 sip:mgraves at mjg.onsip.com From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via VoiceOps Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:29 AM To: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com> Cc: VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering https://wirevolution.com/step-8-register-your-phone-number-at-e164org/ Most of the links have died, so that idea has likely also sunset.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> To: "Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com> Cc: "VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:05:26 AM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering I am also quitely new in the industry, wondered a while about this possibility, and never realized that Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent are exactly this. I wonder about a hybrid idea, instead of using a global bridge, we would use direct end peer to end peer SIP, the list of DID->IP translation will be maintained on a public website, any DID could be added to that website by requesting a call to that DID at IP using the website, there may be a nominal listing fee, in order to maintain the website. Once in a while an automated script could download the config from the website and update local routing rules. Were this idea or alike ever implemented? legal issues? On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:25?AM Alex Balashov via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote: I think the realistic responses are going to be some combination of:

1) "Congratulations, you just invented Neutral Tandem/Inteliquent/whatever they are this week"

2) "The SIP peering exchange has been proclaimed every year since the early 2000s"

3) "This is quietly happening for years now anyway, just not in the way you've got in mind."

-- Alex

...

On 24 Oct 2023, at 08:49, Mike Hammett via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- Hi,

I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

The service would just look like a carrier, except it would know how to reach all other participants directly with SIP, bypassing TDM land, and enabling rich media as a fringe benefit, as media would be direct between endpoints.

I have a proof of concept and am wondering who out there might be willing to do some testing.

Email me directly if interested, to talk about your network and how something like this might fit in.

Cheers,

Jawaid ---

https://www.voip-info.org/the-voice-peering-fabric/ I can't find anything on this in 15 years, so I'm guessing it didn't work out for one reason or another. Can anyone impart some history there?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers? On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service provider? Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all. If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user, then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers. But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the direct carriers leasing numbers to do so. Beckman On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a good clear document somewhere describing how STIR/SHAKEN is supposed to work? On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:33?PM Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

On Oct 24, 2023, at 9:13 PM, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

?CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service provider?

STIR/SHAKEN

...

Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all.

If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user, then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers.

But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the direct carriers leasing numbers to do so.

Beckman

...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://www.angryox.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

---

VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

With STIR/SHAKEN (in theory) all calls will be signed, authenticated so you can trace the originating carrier. In an open peering environment you can use it to accept/reject calls Open SIP proxy handles all of the SIP traffic, RTP goes directly between carriers. All calls originated must be signed (STIRred) * Call isn?t signed, gets rejected by the SIP peering proxy Terminating carrier can validate the signed calls (SHAKEN) * Don?t like the signing CA? reject the call * Don?t like the signing carrier? Reject the call * Carrier sending too many spam calls, adjust treatment based on customer spam settings Routing is handled between terminating carrier and SIP peering proxy. Originating carrier sends all calls to peering proxy first, if proxy doesn?t have the route it sends a 4XX error back and originating carrier can continue routing on other paths. So terminating carriers would need to export/upload (hacked BGP?) numbers they are willing to receive calls on to the peering proxy. Proxies can be spun up in various AWS/Azure/GoogleCloud VPS From: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:18 AM To: Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net> Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>, voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. By reading the RFCs I was able to grasp 75% of it, it's well written and covers your clear constraint, at least on how to verify the SIP header comes from a trustworthy authority (If you agree on the root authority) Practically implementing STIR/SHAKEN has bureaucracy involved. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:38?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote: Is there a good clear document somewhere describing how STIR/SHAKEN is supposed to work? On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:33?PM Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

On Oct 24, 2023, at 9:13 PM, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

?CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service provider?

STIR/SHAKEN

Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all.

If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user, then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers.

But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the direct carriers leasing numbers to do so.

Beckman

...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com<mailto:beckman at angryox.com> https://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops -- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 [Image removed by sender.]

I never said STIR/SHAKEN would be used to ?look up? for call routing. Earlier someone mentioned an issue with open peering is spam calls. STIR/SHAKEN can solve that issue. You can certainly use STIR/SHAKEN to reject calls from $COMPANY once you have determined you don?t like $COMPANY. That can easily be done off line by CDR analysis. Sure you let a couple dozen calls in but you can pretty quickly find ?$BAD_COMPANY? and start rejecting their calls. The system would settle our fairly quickly From: Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04 PM To: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com> Cc: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com>, Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net>, voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. STIR/SHAKEN does not delegate any authority to anyone. It merely allows me to sign a call that I originate, so that someone else can say "Oh this came from $COMPANY." Besides, STIR/SHAKEN is done at the time of an origination call, it cannot be "looked up" to see where to route a call. The suggestion that STIR/SHAKEN could be used to authoritatively assign a DID endpoint to someone demonstrates a lack of understanding in how it works and what it does and does not do. Beckman On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps wrote:

With STIR/SHAKEN (in theory) all calls will be signed, authenticated so you can trace the originating carrier. In an open peering environment you can use it to accept/reject calls

Open SIP proxy handles all of the SIP traffic, RTP goes directly between carriers. All calls originated must be signed (STIRred)

* Call isn?t signed, gets rejected by the SIP peering proxy Terminating carrier can validate the signed calls (SHAKEN)

* Don?t like the signing CA? reject the call * Don?t like the signing carrier? Reject the call * Carrier sending too many spam calls, adjust treatment based on customer spam settings

Routing is handled between terminating carrier and SIP peering proxy. Originating carrier sends all calls to peering proxy first, if proxy doesn?t have the route it sends a 4XX error back and originating carrier can continue routing on other paths.

So terminating carriers would need to export/upload (hacked BGP?) numbers they are willing to receive calls on to the peering proxy.

Proxies can be spun up in various AWS/Azure/GoogleCloud VPS

From: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:18 AM To: Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net> Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>, voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

By reading the RFCs I was able to grasp 75% of it, it's well written and covers your clear constraint, at least on how to verify the SIP header comes from a trustworthy authority (If you agree on the root authority) Practically implementing STIR/SHAKEN has bureaucracy involved.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:38?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote: Is there a good clear document somewhere describing how STIR/SHAKEN is supposed to work?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:33?PM Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

On Oct 24, 2023, at 9:13 PM, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

?CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service provider?

STIR/SHAKEN

...

Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all.

If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user, then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers.

But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the direct carriers leasing numbers to do so.

Beckman

...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com<mailto:beckman at angryox.com> https://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

---

VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 [Image removed by sender.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FCC Robocall Mitigation Database could be that database. It would need to be cleaned up. It?s supposed to be a gate mechanism. Michael Graves mgraves at mstvp.com<mailto:mgraves at mstvp.com> o: (713) 861-4005 c: (713) 201-1262 sip:mgraves at mjg.onsip.com From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 11:54 AM To: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com> Cc: voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering And a pool of peers trusting themselves, could establish a mutual database where they could award or revoke trust to companies or CAs. Then other peers could follow them read only. On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:07?PM Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com<mailto:matthew at corp.crocker.com>> wrote: I never said STIR/SHAKEN would be used to ?look up? for call routing. Earlier someone mentioned an issue with open peering is spam calls. STIR/SHAKEN can solve that issue. You can certainly use STIR/SHAKEN to reject calls from $COMPANY once you have determined you don?t like $COMPANY. That can easily be done off line by CDR analysis. Sure you let a couple dozen calls in but you can pretty quickly find ?$BAD_COMPANY? and start rejecting their calls. The system would settle our fairly quickly From: Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com<mailto:beckman at angryox.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04 PM To: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com<mailto:matthew at corp.crocker.com>> Cc: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com<mailto:neimanpinchas at gmail.com>>, Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net<mailto:jawaid at bazyar.net>>, voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. STIR/SHAKEN does not delegate any authority to anyone. It merely allows me to sign a call that I originate, so that someone else can say "Oh this came from $COMPANY." Besides, STIR/SHAKEN is done at the time of an origination call, it cannot be "looked up" to see where to route a call. The suggestion that STIR/SHAKEN could be used to authoritatively assign a DID endpoint to someone demonstrates a lack of understanding in how it works and what it does and does not do. Beckman On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps wrote:

With STIR/SHAKEN (in theory) all calls will be signed, authenticated so you can trace the originating carrier. In an open peering environment you can use it to accept/reject calls

Open SIP proxy handles all of the SIP traffic, RTP goes directly between carriers. All calls originated must be signed (STIRred)

* Call isn?t signed, gets rejected by the SIP peering proxy Terminating carrier can validate the signed calls (SHAKEN)

* Don?t like the signing CA? reject the call * Don?t like the signing carrier? Reject the call * Carrier sending too many spam calls, adjust treatment based on customer spam settings

Routing is handled between terminating carrier and SIP peering proxy. Originating carrier sends all calls to peering proxy first, if proxy doesn?t have the route it sends a 4XX error back and originating carrier can continue routing on other paths.

So terminating carriers would need to export/upload (hacked BGP?) numbers they are willing to receive calls on to the peering proxy.

Proxies can be spun up in various AWS/Azure/GoogleCloud VPS

From: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com<mailto:neimanpinchas at gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:18 AM To: Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net<mailto:jawaid at bazyar.net>> Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com<mailto:matthew at corp.crocker.com>>, voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

By reading the RFCs I was able to grasp 75% of it, it's well written and covers your clear constraint, at least on how to verify the SIP header comes from a trustworthy authority (If you agree on the root authority) Practically implementing STIR/SHAKEN has bureaucracy involved.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:38?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org><mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>> wrote: Is there a good clear document somewhere describing how STIR/SHAKEN is supposed to work?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:33?PM Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org><mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>> wrote:

...

On Oct 24, 2023, at 9:13 PM, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org><mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>> wrote:

?CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service provider?

STIR/SHAKEN

...

Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all.

If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user, then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers.

But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the direct carriers leasing numbers to do so.

Beckman

...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org><mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>> wrote:

...

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org><mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org><mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>>> wrote:

...

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org><mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org><mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com<mailto:beckman at angryox.com><mailto:beckman at angryox.com> https://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org><mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org><mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

---

VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org><mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org><mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 [Image removed by sender.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com<mailto:beckman at angryox.com> https://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4z1Lx063u893FlkIV1C3aJbVPjgK...]

A solution (where to send the call) was offered (open peering) but then devolved into ?how to you stop spam? and I offered STIR/SHAKEN. There have been plenty of open routing solutions thrown about over the past 30 years, none have ever taken hold. From: Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:08 PM To: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com> Cc: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com>, Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net>, VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This whole conversation, and topic, is "Voice Peering" -- ORIGINATING CALLS directly to the endpoint rather than me passing to Level3 who passes to IQ who passes to their customer who passes to their customer who has a VoIP device that I could reach directly if I only had the ability to do so. This has nothing to do with rejecting incoming calls signed with STIR/SHAKEN. The call cannot start until I know where to send the call. <-- problem that we are discussing Beckman On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Matthew Crocker wrote:

I never said STIR/SHAKEN would be used to ?look up? for call routing.

Earlier someone mentioned an issue with open peering is spam calls. STIR/SHAKEN can solve that issue.

You can certainly use STIR/SHAKEN to reject calls from $COMPANY once you have determined you don?t like $COMPANY. That can easily be done off line by CDR analysis. Sure you let a couple dozen calls in but you can pretty quickly find ?$BAD_COMPANY? and start rejecting their calls. The system would settle our fairly quickly

From: Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04 PM To: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com> Cc: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com>, Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net>, voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

STIR/SHAKEN does not delegate any authority to anyone.

It merely allows me to sign a call that I originate, so that someone else can say "Oh this came from $COMPANY."

Besides, STIR/SHAKEN is done at the time of an origination call, it cannot be "looked up" to see where to route a call.

The suggestion that STIR/SHAKEN could be used to authoritatively assign a DID endpoint to someone demonstrates a lack of understanding in how it works and what it does and does not do.

Beckman

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps wrote:

...

With STIR/SHAKEN (in theory) all calls will be signed, authenticated so you can trace the originating carrier. In an open peering environment you can use it to accept/reject calls

Open SIP proxy handles all of the SIP traffic, RTP goes directly between carriers. All calls originated must be signed (STIRred)

* Call isn?t signed, gets rejected by the SIP peering proxy Terminating carrier can validate the signed calls (SHAKEN)

* Don?t like the signing CA? reject the call * Don?t like the signing carrier? Reject the call * Carrier sending too many spam calls, adjust treatment based on customer spam settings

Routing is handled between terminating carrier and SIP peering proxy. Originating carrier sends all calls to peering proxy first, if proxy doesn?t have the route it sends a 4XX error back and originating carrier can continue routing on other paths.

So terminating carriers would need to export/upload (hacked BGP?) numbers they are willing to receive calls on to the peering proxy.

Proxies can be spun up in various AWS/Azure/GoogleCloud VPS

From: Pinchas Neiman <neimanpinchas at gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:18 AM To: Jawaid Bazyar <jawaid at bazyar.net> Cc: Matthew Crocker <matthew at corp.crocker.com>, voiceops <voiceops at voiceops.org> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Voice Peering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

By reading the RFCs I was able to grasp 75% of it, it's well written and covers your clear constraint, at least on how to verify the SIP header comes from a trustworthy authority (If you agree on the root authority) Practically implementing STIR/SHAKEN has bureaucracy involved.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:38?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote: Is there a good clear document somewhere describing how STIR/SHAKEN is supposed to work?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:33?PM Matthew Crocker via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

On Oct 24, 2023, at 9:13 PM, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

?CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crocker. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service provider?

STIR/SHAKEN

...

Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all.

If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user, then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers.

But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the direct carriers leasing numbers to do so.

Beckman

...

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org<mailto:voiceops at voiceops.org>> wrote:

> This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own > conversation. Someone had asked: > > --- > I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested > in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP? >

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com<mailto:beckman at angryox.com> https://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

---

VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org<mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-- Pinchas S. Neiman Software Engineer At ESEQ Technology Corp. 845.213.1229 #2 [Image removed by sender.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 25 Oct 2023, at 11:18, Pinchas Neiman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

By reading the RFCs I was able to grasp 75% of it, it's well written and covers your clear constraint, at least on how to verify the SIP header comes from a trustworthy authority (If you agree on the root authority) Practically implementing STIR/SHAKEN has bureaucracy involved.

Just this. The technical specs are the easy part. Actually implementing is mostly a clerical and bureaucratic chore. There is also widespread misunderstanding of what it does and does not accomplish. It does not prevent spam calls. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

On 25 Oct 2023, at 15:12, Michael Graves <mgraves at mstvp.com> wrote:

The apparent elegance of a technology can be entrancing.

To quote the great Leonard Cohen, "We're blinded by the beauty of our weapons."

Indeed. I think that sums up ENUM peering, e164.org <http://e164.org/>, DUNDi federations, and their various proprietary and semi-proprietary cousins (e.g. Open Settlement Protocol). But when you actually needed to make phone calls, holla at the Bell tandem and SS7 A-links. That's been changing, but not at all because of Internet-native voice peering. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Mike Johnston via VoiceOps wrote:

Anyways, say your system is getting a call from 555-555-1234. So you do a DNS query against...I do not know.

dig TXT 4.3.2.1.5.5.5.5.5.5.i-do-not-know.....

How do you take an incoming call, from an IP you do not know, turn that IP and/or phone number into a Domain Name, and then query it? If you get a domain name, you now automatically trust that the incoming call is worthy of your trust, because I can set up "allyourbase.com" and send a call to you and you check my SPF record and I say "totally ip4:0.0.0.0/24" (the entire internet) and you go "Cool! I'll take the call!" Yet what entity is actually sending you the call? SPF works because what you are sending (email) is also part of the domain name. And even if you added a SIP header with a domain, all you are doing is looking up a SPF/TXT record for the domain the call says they are coming from, but now you have to implement DKIM-signing so someone cannot pretend to be calling from a different domain. Then YOU the call receiver have to decide if you trust the entity that is sending the call!!! And you still haven't solved the problem of how the caller found out your Endpoint in the first place to make the SIP call. There are DNS SRV records, which tell you HOW to access a certain service given a domain name. e.g. --> dig srv _sip._udp.srv.lcr.thinq.com ; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> srv _sip._udp.srv.lcr.thinq.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 27421 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;_sip._udp.srv.lcr.thinq.com. IN SRV ;; ANSWER SECTION: _sip._udp.srv.lcr.thinq.com. 20384 IN SRV 100 50 5060 lcr-lb02.rdu.thinq.com. _sip._udp.srv.lcr.thinq.com. 20384 IN SRV 200 50 5060 lcr-lb02.dfw.thinq.com. _sip._udp.srv.lcr.thinq.com. 20384 IN SRV 200 50 5060 lcr-lb01.dfw.thinq.com. _sip._udp.srv.lcr.thinq.com. 20384 IN SRV 100 50 5060 lcr-lb01.rdu.thinq.com. ;; Query time: 5 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1) ;; WHEN: Wed Oct 25 18:47:53 EDT 2023 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 224 That's great, so I know where to send a call, if I know that Thinq is the endpoint of record for a phone numbe . But how do I take +1 202 456 1111 and authoritatively know what endpoint/domain/entity to reach out to? And how does that endpoint know to trust me? Due to Number Porting and a lack of any way for any leasee of a number to publish such information with the blessing of NANPA ($govt-entity) and the assigned Tier 0 carrier, or have any fallback if your endpoint is offline or unavailable, there's no hierarchy to implement. I suppose something like this could work: NANPA (root) gets request for 12024561111, tells you to check with IQ at a certain hostname IQ (delegate) gets request for 12024561111, tells you to check with FrogTele at a certain hostname FrogTele gives you a response that confirms that one can call them and reach the endpoint A SRV query is made to determine what host(s) within FrogTele can handle a UDP SIP call You place the call If it fails, maybe you can go to IQ as a backup and call through them. If FrogTele says "no I do not service that number," then what do you do, go back to IQ? For ANY of this to work, NANPA and Tier 0 carriers who get numbers directly from NANPA (NANPA only knows about its direct customers, not resellers, or Tier 1+ carriers) would have to build it and participate. Even if they did, currently all this is implemented either through security through obscurity (which this model breaks) or IP firewalls & whitelists. Most of the authentication stuff is weak or static, which is another security risk. Now that all the Internet knows what carrier is handling a specific phone number, which potentially discloses PII, which an attacker could then use to target the website and web account of the target with a re-used password from another hack, and your customer loses their account (granted because of their bad security practices) because you wanted to save a few tenths of a cent per minute. TRUST is the problem. MONEY is the problem. NANPA has no financial nor governmental incentive to do this. Tier 0 carriers have a negative financial incentive to do this. Without NANPA and Tier 0 carriers involvement, anyone can self-publish a record somewhere saying "Call me here!" and nobody will know if that can be trusted, because the trust chain is non-existent without NANPA and Tier 0 carriers involvement. Like Alex said, Technically this is achievable. Politically and Financially this is Dead on Arrival, at least until the incentives change. On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Mike Johnston via VoiceOps wrote:

Who can source email from a domain is more-or-less a solved problem by using DNS SPF records.

An SPF record is a list of IP addresses[1] that is allowed to send email for a domain. When an email server receives an email, best practice is to do a DNS lookup for the SPF of the alleged sender domain. If the server attempting to send the email is not mentioned in the SPF, then you can reject the incoming email.

Does anybody know if something like SPF has been adapted to voice?

For example, say anything from 54.239.16.0/24 is allowed as that is where your phone switches are. And 20.112.88.88/29 can also make calls, as that is one of those School Auto-Dialer services[2]. (Or whatever, make up your own scenarios.)

When you receive calls, you would need to do a DNS lookup to get the list of allowed senders. If it's not in the list, reject the call.

The exact query, and who we are querying, is a good question, though. Who owns the phone number?

Anyways, say your system is getting a call from 555-555-1234. So you do a DNS query against...I do not know.

dig TXT 4.3.2.1.5.5.5.5.5.5.i-do-not-know.....

How do you take an incoming call, from an IP you do not know, turn that IP and/or phone number into a Domain Name, and then query it? If you get that, you now automatically trust that the incoming call is worthy of your trust, because I can set up "allyourbase.com" and send a call to you and you check my SPF record and I say "totally ip4:0.0.0.0/24" (the entire internet) and you go "Cool! I'll take the call!" Yet what entity is actually sending you the call?

And say you got this back from the DNS query:

"v=spf1 ip4:54.239.16.0/24 ip4:20.112.88.88/29 -all"

If the server sending you the call is not in 54.239.16.0/24 or 20.112.88.88/29, then reject the call.

[1] An SPF record can have more than just IP addresses, but can also "include" other domain names. [2] You might do your DNS in such a way, that 20.112.88.88/29 is only returned for the specific number(s) that you expect them to be sending from, not ALL of your numbers.

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/dns/dns-records/dns-spf-record/ https://support.google.com/a/answer/10685031?hl=en

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls Yes, true...but I don't really care about retail consumers or resellers. If they are doing enough VoIP volume that they care about peering, they can go through the regulatory process and get their own OCN.

Similarly, I wouldn't peer with a business that used an internet connection but didn't have their own ASN/IPs. It's just not worth it for me. If they have that kind of need, they can participate the same way the grown-ups do. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:13?PM Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote:

The challenge is how do you authenticate the end "carrier" or service provider?

Sure, anyone who leases numbers directly from NANPA can look up the carrier of record and exchange traffic directly, but any business who also leases numbers INDIRECTLY gets cut out and still needs to pay their upstream carrier(s) to place/receive calls, either by channels or per minute, even if their upstream is directly peered and not transiting the PSTN at all.

If this would be for the end user, then NANPA would have to delegate to the leasee, the leasee delegate to the reseller, the reseller to the end user, then the end user could publish their VoIP contact info, and anyone could call directly via VoIP, cutting out all of the middle peers.

But, as another person said, this is ripe for abuse, and with no motivation by NANPA or the larger carriers to make calls less expensive for the reseller or end user, I see this going nowhere. Until there is some value in NANPA (plus all the other country telephony organizations) and the direct carriers leasing numbers to do so.

Beckman

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Ross Tajvar via VoiceOps wrote:

...

I can think of a few ways that could be adapted into a platform more like an Internet exchange, but as others have said, it just doesn't seem worth it.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 5:31?PM Jawaid Bazyar via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

I think schemes like DUNDI (and some of the others mentioned here) suffer from a trust issue ? what?s to prevent operator X from poisoning the protocol with bogus ?stolen? numbers?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:25?PM Jared Smith via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:49?AM Mike Hammett via VoiceOps < voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:

...

This was in another thread, but I broke it out into it's own conversation. Someone had asked:

--- I am joining this thread late, but, would anyone out there be interested in exchanging traffic with other carriers directly over SIP?

Just another point of VoIP history trivia at this point... but in addition to things like ENUM and ITAD, Mark Spencer of Asterisk fame also invented Dundi, which was an encrypted peer-to-peer protocol for route advertisement and discovery. As far as I know, very few people besides me ever put it in production, but it worked really well at the time. (Of course, it's been about 17 or 18 years now since I used it in production.)

-Jared _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com https://www.angryox.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops