
Operational Review of Public ENUM Under e164.arpa
• 6 min read
A 2026 operational review of Public ENUM under e164.arpa found that half of the current delegations show some form of DNS problem. The findings are expected to be discussed at RIPE 92, including the operational status and future support of Public ENUM under e164.arpa.
















“Dear Hisham, Thanks for the elaborate overview and bringing this discussion to where it belongs (RIPE Community). Looking forward to the discussion during the Services Working Group session. Ahead of that and to inform the discussion, a couple of questions. - Could you provide an overview of the costs associated with the operation and management of the e164.arpa zone, on an annual basis, related to capex and opex to both ensure the DNS responses are provided and the administrative burden to maintain the delegations? I am asking particularly since the meeting report of ITU SG2 contains a reference to the cost: "[..]The meeting reviewed the current status of on ENUM on e164.arpa as operated by RIPE NCC according to the agreed interim administrative procedures as well as the operational and cost related impacts of the potential migration from who is to the new protocol Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP).[..]" To the latter, any insights on the capex required to add RDAP support would also be welcome. The report at least in my interpretation suggests there is a sharing of burden (costs) between ITU TSB and RIPE NCC on the costs of implementing RDAP, am I correct? - Could you share any qualitative or quantitative analyses on the efforts to date to deal with the non-responsive or non-working delegations? From the SG2 report "[..] and despite the outreach of TSB regarding a number of ‘stale’ Country Code delegations to Member states in the DNS under e164.arpa, these remain inoperative [..]" In my view, the current operating instructions 2.11/2.12 provide a pathway to remove such delegations as "[..] in case the technical set-up of an existing delegation becomes fully non-functional, and the assignee has no intentions to restore it (or is unreachable), the RIPE NCC will consider this to be a revocation request[..]". Has this procedure been followed on any of the delegations identified in 2020 or 2025 and what was the outcome?”
Thank you Marco for your comment. I will be presenting the results of the 2026 operational review the RIPE NCC conducted at the services WG session at RIPE 92 (https://ripe92.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/90/). The slides are available with the findings and the video should be available after the session.
“Thanks for this, Hisham! I especially liked that OKR table, linking the goals to the programme objectives.”
Thanks Michael for mentioning that. Indeed it required some work from my colleague Alena Muravska, our Programme Management Officer, and I to get the logical mapping done right to start the OKR process. I am sure you would also appreciate the addition of the environmental programme based on the feedback we heard from staff and community members including yourself.
“What are the numbers and geographic distribution of not-for-profit network operators? I can imagine that academic, research and civil society network operators would be engaging more if they are explicitly addressed together.”
I'm not entirely sure I got your question... However, the RIPE NCC has several activities for engagement with academics and researchers throughout our service region, such as RACI, free student tickets, sessions at universities fall under this. We also organise online and in-person academic sessions connected with each RIPE Meeting. Our in-house researchers also cooperate with universities all over our service region. You can read more from my colleague Gergana Petrova, our Community Development Manager: https://labs.ripe.net/author/gergana_petrova/community-development-plans-for-2023/
Showing 3 comment(s)