Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Thu, 29 September 2011 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E580E21F899D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.025
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zfJMPdZjrblc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B94721F8906 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31862 invoked by uid 0); 29 Sep 2011 23:21:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2011 23:21:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=kPaodpr8CSKT+UaJrrel6hVs9bO13bbckyfo2MhP2+4=; b=WumaOJySsXBthnEcf2cwJSB/f2SDoRGSBo5rHP6kj1w2PgN3n0qiWEsbTpVGMZ6s+sFzk1t/cdD32ko34N+Ehoq99yKEMqrQ2v+D2KBgROeieSXIvUa9hFgoqbE0O0Ln;
Received: from pool-71-178-24-118.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([71.178.24.118] helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1R9PvB-0008FO-Na; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:21:41 -0600
From: "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us>
To: "'Cullen Jennings'" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com><CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com><CALiegfmO54HC+g9L_DYn4jtXAAbLEvS++qxKa6TNrLDREs9SeA@mail.gmail.com><4E80984A.903@skype.net><CALiegfmyvTb57WVooKryS-ubfcg+w5gZ+zfO1zzBLn3609AzaA@mail.gmail.com>, <4E809EE6.2050702@skype.net>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1087@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <BLU152-W62B7F2AC3F0D5B6E277CB993F00@phx.gbl> <9790CEA7-59E6-4E14-9D5D-F9669E95036E@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9790CEA7-59E6-4E14-9D5D-F9669E95036E@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:21:39 -0400
Message-ID: <02f701cc7efe$8b44b2f0$a1ce18d0$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: Acx97Pj96CQk/MCxSFWzTJwePro+oABEG6wg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.178.24.118 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:18:51 -0000

> [BA] I think you may be on to something here.  POTS lines are dropping so
rapidly
> that wireline service won't even exist in some countries within a few
years.  While
> PSTN interop may have been a key scenario in the early days of SIP, I have
serious
> doubts as to how much attention we should pay to this in RTCWEB.  Ability
to
> make a call to an E.164 number?  Probably.  Support for every potential
corner
> case?  Not necessarily. 

I wish I could agree but I think we have a long, long, way to go here. I
will point out that the only way Microsoft can phone Cisco is over the PSTN
and that is two of the most pro VoIP companies in the world. Thought I agree
with rate of land lines is dropping in some countries, the rate of  what
VoIP reaches via the PSTN, which is land lines + mobile phones, is growing
in every country I have stats for. Now of course, I'd love to see the PSTN
replaced with something better but I think it is highly unrealistic to think
that is going to happen in less than 10 years. 


RS> And at the rate this discussion is going it is reasonable to assume that
it might be 10 years before RTCWEB might be able to reach consensus. But for
what it's worth the end of POTS/PSTN is under active discussion. If for no
other reason than the  backplanes of the 5E's and DMS 500's are literally
cracking at a increasing pace. Remember 3G mobile networks still use TDM
Switches. Bernard's point is well taken RTCWEB shouldn't worry about
interconnection some gateway or border element will normalize that problem
in some way shape or form. 





_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb