IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 27 September 2011 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 C5F4C21F8E7A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 KhCPh2gPxbhh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f50.google.com (mail-pz0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AD821F8E70 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so18902739pzk.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.7.166 with SMTP id k6mr22905798pba.128.1317139733041; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f50.google.com (mail-pz0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y5sm85807595pbe.6.2011.09.27.09.08.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so18902700pzk.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.34.138 with SMTP id z10mr37699603pbi.105.1317139731799; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.55.39 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W641047D45C0DF6A490EEF193F00@phx.gbl>
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> <CAD5OKxt=P3jg9N0weFUZLvUYQxyeXa+9YMtpc8wn7osuPQmTpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtVCgiFV_iAYd1w0uZZcS5+gsixOHJ0jGN=0CMdq++kdg@mail.gmail.com> <84254826-C357-4FB5-810D-C453A2D1304C@phonefromhere.com> <CAD5OKxt1mn-pcWW01a1wT0yCToaL1NL5Fjt-NJbJYmx=Ygrk6Q@mail.gmail.com> <BLU152-W641047D45C0DF6A490EEF193F00@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:08:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtC+7oBe5Y+EGhX7f0SneGEmW0YoM9sPSXoRFjBxq0F4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5216303d5604104adee7d8e"
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: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:06:07 -0000

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Bernard Aboba
<bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Roman Shpount said:
>
> "It does not matter what they run. Quite a few of them do not run GSM, but
> I can cost effectively call every one of them using SIP/G.711, and that's
> what very important. It will take some amount of time to upgrade this
> infrastructure to support SRTP and ICE."
>
> [BA] Why would it be necessary to upgrade wireless carrier infrastructure?
> Presumably a service that wants to make calls to E.164 numbers will install
> a gateway that enables this.  Wireless carriers wouldn't have to upgrade.
>

No, we do not need to upgrade wireless carriers. The only people really
affected are the SIP trunking providers, and they are also often the slowest
in introducing new features.

What I meant that by supporting SIP/G.711 we get an a existing, cost
effective way to access 5 billion wireless subscribers, as well as 500M
Skype subscribers, millions of corporate customers. Calling using SIP/G.711
through a SIP trunk provider is not only about wireline PSTN, it is about a
much larger universe of people.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email