ENUM & Bind9 wildcards?

Hi,

I'm trying to run an Enum server. Got the enum record matching to work.

Is there a way to use wildcards in DNS records. Say I want to make an enum table for the UK and use the E.164 telephonenumber in the SIP URI.

Is there a possible way to get the wildcard data (matched by *) in the [phone_number_here] using replacement in the BIND9 conf?

Thanks, Arnold.

Arnold Ligtvoet wrote: [...]

This is actually a DNS issue, more than one specifically related to ENUM. According to

Enzo

thanks for that response. My regular expressions were wrong indeed. Fixed them and immediately ran into the next question. For the given sample all numbers starting 8829990 are controlled by FWD. Now one user wants to 'port' the telephonenumer to another operator, say Payed World Dialup. How would one set this up in ENUM?

I've tried (ported numer is 88299901) to do this:

This gives me the situation where the specific telephone number works, the wildcardmatching does not work. Is there any other way of setting this where ENUM allows you to use general wildcards with exeptions?

Thanks for your input.

Arnol.d

Yep, that would. However the problem is that this does not work. As soon as I enter the RR for the direct phonenumber, wildcardmatching does not work for all other numbers. As soon as I comment out the RR with the direct phonenumber, wildcardmatching works again.

It almost seems like the direct RR is blocking the wilcard match and if I understand you and the RFC correctly it should not?

Should the above config work?

Arnold.

I'd say it should, but I'm not an expert in BIND or DNS in general. Perhaps you could find better advice on some DNS-related group, such as comp.protocols.dns.bind , especially if you reformulate your question as "why this wildcard-with-exception configuration doesn't work the way I think it should".

Enzo

I'll do some more investigating over there. What I did find is that if I do wild card matching on full e164 blocks and have specific numbers I need different wild-cards: Normal declaration (works, matches all number in given area code):

Declaration with ported number (works as well):

Notice the new 2nd and 3rd NAPTR record. The second matches one level down and the 3rd the complete number.

In the second case the wildcards work and the specific number is found as well. I'm not certain as to the logic behind needing to have a wildcard one level down, however everything seems to work if I do it like this.

Thanks for your help!

Arnold.