ENUM

Tekelec’s opinion on Change orders NANC 400 and NANC 401

LNP Compared to ENUM (High level)

• Problem Statement is the same

(Who owns the phone number?)

 LNP resolves a Phone Number to LRN (carrier) in the PSTN  Tier I Public ENUM resolves a phone number to a Name Server (e.g. carrier) in 3G Phone Number  Carrier Database  Tier II Public ENUM provides the device the subscriber wants to be contacted on Query  Tier I Private ENUM can resolve a phone number to a non e164.arpa carrier domain (e.g. NANC 400,401) Response  Tier I Private ENUM should be competitive

Tekelec Proprietary

’05 | 2

Tekelec Issues with NANC 400 and 401

• DPC/SSN is not analogous to URI   Is an IP address analogous to a telephone number, really?

DPC/SSN was implemented in NPAC for SMS portability  Most Carriers do not use SS7 to deliver inter-carrier SMS.

• ENUM data and LNP data used by separate applications  Why tie provisioning of future application to existing CMIP interface?

 Unnecessarily increases complexity of performance analysis and data modifications

’05 | 3

Tekelec Proprietary

Tekelec Issues with NANC 400 and 401

• ENUM data being placed in a government mandated system controlled by a monopoly  Contradicts ENUM LLC and Forum drivers for Tier I ENUM  Understand that NeuStar may be providing a private ENUM service today for inter-carrier MMS – how does this relate?

• Large impact on existing LNP architecture  If NANC 400 passes, Tekelec will adjust as necessary but industry must then not retract approval.

 Competitive benefit for Tekelec given LNP footprint

’05 | 4

Tekelec Proprietary

Backup

Tekelec Proprietary

’05 | 5

LNP Compared to ENUM (Details)

• ENUM actually works very differently than LNP  Call processing  LNP is SS7 based Query/Response  NPAC is not in the call path  ENUM is DNS based Query/Response  Tier I ENUM is in the call path  Provisioning:  The NPAC provisions routing information into service providers’ routing DBs. Carriers use that routing information within their own networks to route calls and SS7 messages  ENUM provisions a DNS server, called Tier 1. Users (e.g., carriers) query that DNS server which points them to another server, called Tier II, to retrieve the routing data

’05 | 6

Tekelec Proprietary

LNP Compared to ENUM (Details)

• Control over ENUM is very different than LNP  Entities Involved in the Service  NPAC - the NPAC, the LLC and the NPAC Users  ENUM – consumers (i.e., registrants), registrars, ENUM LLC, Tier 1 providers, Tier II providers, application service providers, etc.

 Regulatory Oversight:  The FCC has oversight of NP  ENUM receives oversight from the DoC, FCC, State Dept., FTC, and ITU-T. The IAB and the 18 other countries within CC1 provide policy-related input.  Access to Data :  NP data is only available to NPAC Users  ENUM, like the DNS, is potentially a public resource (anyone can query)

Tekelec Proprietary

’05 | 7

LNP – ENUM Interaction (Details)

• There are no mechanisms within ENUM to account for LNP  There is no concept of a service provider/SPID (i.e., carrier) in public ENUM, only registrars and registrants  The public ENUM record could be changed at either Tier 1 or Tier 2 to reflect the change in carrier    Any changes in an public ENUM record requires the approval (opt-in) of the consumer (registrant) It’s possible that a carrier could port a number but would be unable to modify public ENUM records It’s possible that a consumer would not allow the carrier to change their public ENUM record

Tekelec Proprietary

’05 | 8