RE: RE: draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-session-timer-00.txt

Sean Olson <eussean@exu.ericsson.se> Fri, 12 February 1999 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id LAA16017 for confctrl-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA16012 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:51:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gwu.ericy.com (gwu.ericy.com [208.196.3.162]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA21765 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:51:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mr4.exu.ericsson.se ([138.85.11.56]) by gwu.ericy.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15743; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:51:58 -0600 (CST)
Received: from newman.exu.ericsson.se (newman.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.10.50]) by mr4.exu.ericsson.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA21147; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:50:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: from b04a42.exu.ericsson.se (b04a42 [138.85.60.142]) by newman.exu.ericsson.se (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA25874; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:50:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Sean Olson <eussean@exu.ericsson.se>
Received: (eussean@localhost) by b04a42.exu.ericsson.se (8.8.2/8.6.12) id NAA03123; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:49:33 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:49:33 -0600
Message-Id: <199902121949.NAA03123@b04a42.exu.ericsson.se>
To: ernst.horvath@siemens.at, fmenard@mediatrix.com
Subject: RE: RE: draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-session-timer-00.txt
Cc: confctrl@ISI.EDU, fm-listproc@mediatrix.com, iptel@lists.research.bell-labs.com, Pat.Calhoun@Eng.Sun.COM, Steven.R.Donovan@mci.com
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk

> 
> > [Ernst Horvath]  Not quite true - for the gatekeeper, ITU-T  
> > Recommendation H.225.0 specifies the Disengage message for the regular  
> > termination of a call (i.e. the gatekeeper is informed immediately upon  
> > termination), but there is also the Status request/report procedure to  
> > check the status of an end point. If exchanged at regular intervals  
> > (say every n seconds, while a call exists), the gatekeeper will notice  
> > the "death" of an end point with a delay of at most n seconds.
> > 
> 
> Which means that if you want to maintain the billing accuracy that is
> popular in today's PSTN, you'd have to set this frequency to one second...
> Has anyone analyzed the scalability of this ? How big is the PDU of the
> status message ?

This assumes the best case scenario w/no re-transmissions and perfect
reliability of the status requests (which does not exist for UDP SIP 
communication). The bottom line seems to be that if you want to charge
on a time usage basis, you MUST have control of the media stream which is
outside the scope of SIP itself.

Sean Olson