RE: [Speermint] Defining Location Function (RE: Updated Draft:SPEERMINT Peering Architecture)

["Richard Shockey" <[e-mail]>]

NO .. that was called TRIP ( go do a RFC search) and no one in their right
mind wants to put a BGB like layer on VoIP routing.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 2:56 PM
> To: Stastny Richard
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Speermint] Defining Location Function (RE: Updated
> Draft:SPEERMINT Peering Architecture)
> 
> 
> Is it possible to take lessons from hierarchical eBGP routing?
> We can consider each provider as the Autonomous System (say Level 0), a
> federation is a hierarchical Autonomous system (say Level 1) that
> contains a group of Autonomous-system (level 0).  Hierarchical
> Autonomous system's (Level 1) SIP route-database (as opposed to the BGP
> routing table) is the Location Function (LF). SIP call routing feature
> will be destination-based, path-vector based, and policy based similar
> to BGP features.
> I am trying to initiate a discussion in a different angle.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sohel Khan, Ph.D.
> Technology Strategist
> Sprint-Nextel
> 913-794-1470 (office)
> 913-486-3145 (cell)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 10:06 AM
> To: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> 
> Sohel,
> 
> I posted this already on Friday, but I think everybody (including me)
> lost track already;-)
> 
> So here once again:
> 
> "May I try my summary: the Location function is a process containing
> eventually more then one step:
> 
> "If you start with the CRD (e.g a SIP AoR entered by the User or derived
> from ENUM)"
> 
> Remark: Whith this I ment that the E.164 to SIP URI mapping is already
> done, because this is out-of-scope of SPEERMINT.
> In addition, SPEERMINT MUST be able to work in the same way if the user
> has entered a SIP URI direct. This is why I prefer that the result of an
> ENUM query is an AoR and not directly the ingress element to the
> destination network.
> 
> 
> "1. The AoR gives you the destination network
> 
> 2. You need to locate the peering club (= federation) for exchanging SIP
> messages (L5 )with the destination network
> 
> 3. so you need to locate the policy you want to use and make a decision
> on the federation
> (note: a destination network may belong to more then one federations)"
> (Remark: both origination network and destination network may be members
> of more then one federation. They may need to locate a common one. If
> more then one federation is in common, it is the choice of the
> origination network to select one - So the Policy Function is embedded
> in the LF)
> 
> 4.  "having chosen a federation, you need to locate the ingress
> proxy(ies) the destination network is using within this federation.
> 
> 5. If you are using a separate peering for exchanging media, you now may
> locate these"
> 
> Additional remark: In step 4. and 5. some geographic location magic
> could come into play as requested by some on this list.
> 
> Regards
> Richard
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:30 PM
> > To: Stastny Richard
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > Would you please describe what LF should perform (in your opinion)?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sohel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stastny Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 3:07 AM
> > To: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> >
> > I do not know how often I stated here that numbering issues (and
> > therefore also NUMBER Portability issues) are out-of-scope in
> SPEERMINT
> >
> > So NUMBER Portablility cannot ne addressed in SPEERMINT LF
> >
> > Or we change the SPEERMINT charter
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Gesendet: So 28.05.2006 06:48
> > An: Stastny Richard; Reinaldo Penno
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Betreff: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> >
> >
> >
> > I think issues of mobility and number portability need to be addressed
> 
> > together in SPEERMINT LF.
> >
> > Sohel Khan, Ph.D.
> > Sprint-Nextel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Stastny Richard" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Reinaldo Penno" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 5/27/06 4:52 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> >
> > What question?
> > Richard
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Gesendet: Sa 27.05.2006 23:46
> > An: Stastny Richard
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Betreff: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> >
> >
> >
> > Apart form your outside-of-the-us rhetoric the questions remains.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stastny Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 2:38 PM
> > > To: Reinaldo Penno
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering
> Architecture
> > >
> > > ENUM issues should not be discussed in SPEERMINT, just some
> questions
> > >
> > > >Enum? When I dial [phone], what is there to resolve _inside_
> > the
> > > >wireless network that owns this number apart from the location of
> the
> >
> > > >user?
> > >
> > > and _outside_?
> > > ENUM is about numbers like [phone]
> > >
> > > hello, we are talking E.164 numbers in ENUM, which is international
> > > numbers
> > >
> > > >Now, in the scenario where an external call (for example, a
> cingular
> > > >customer calling a Verizon customer (which owns an original
> t-mobile
> > > >number). How that works today? If you say ENUM I would stand
> > corrected
> > > >(and surprised), since LNP has been fully deployed since 2003.
> > >
> > > Cingular?Verizon? ...
> > >
> > > we are talking about a global solution here You are a bit US centric
> 
> > > here, there is also some 200 other nations ozt there.
> > >
> > > I have no access to the US LNP database from e.g. Austria
> > >
> > > So you want to consider US national databases only in speermint?
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > Von: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Gesendet: Sa 27.05.2006 21:30
> > > An: Stastny Richard; Otmar Lendl
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Betreff: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering
> Architecture
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Enum? When I dial [phone], what is there to resolve _inside_
> > the
> > > wireless network that owns this number apart from the location of
> the
> > > user?
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, in the scenario where an external call (for example, a cingular
> 
> > > customer calling a Verizon customer (which owns an original t-mobile
> 
> > > number). How that works today? If you say ENUM I would stand
> corrected
> >
> > > (and surprised), since LNP has been fully deployed since 2003.
> > >
> > > When a user takes its number with them, I assumed this punches a
> whole
> >
> > > in the telephone prefix hierarchy and a specific entry somewhere is
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Reinaldo
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stastny Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 4:26 AM
> > > > To: Reinaldo Penno; Otmar Lendl
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering
> > Architecture
> > > >
> > > > >I wonder how
> > > > >LNP is solved within wireless...A specific entry for each phone?
> > That
> > > > >would be crazy.
> > > >
> > > > Ahem, ENUM?
> > > >
> > > > I thought that is all what ENUM is about?
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Von: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Gesendet: Sa 27.05.2006 11:04
> > > > An: Otmar Lendl; Patrick Melampy
> > > > Cc: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]; [e-mail]
> > > > Betreff: RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering
> > Architecture
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I believe the crux of the problem was missed.
> > > >
> > > > The issue is not really the number of domains. We have today some
> > > > 400.000.000 million hosts on the Internet. BGP peers to do not
> > > exchange
> > > > 400.000.000 million routes, they exchange in the low hundreds of
> > > > thousands.
> > > >
> > > > And why is that? (I guess you know where I'm getting at). That's
> > > because
> > > > IP addresses lend themselves very well to hierarchical deployment,
> 
> > > > compression through prefix/CIDR usage and the like. DNS names are
> > > > strings and hence difficult to come up with a similar scheme.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe that if domains need to be exchanged between peers:
> > > >
> > > > 1 - Just a limited set would be exchanged and a "default layer 5
> > > route"
> > > > (equivalent to a traditional default route) would be used.
> > > >
> > > > 2 - Compression schemes like *.company.com, regular expressions or
> > the
> > > > like would need to be used. Having specific routes to AORs would
> be
> > > > hairy (maybe for the eventual roaming or visiting user). I wonder
> > how
> > > > LNP is solved within wireless...A specific entry for each phone?
> > That
> > > > would be crazy.
> > > >
> > > > 3 - Some new scheme that will make somebody rich....until then..
> > > >
> > > > I believe subscriptions would be used to exchange mostly "cost"
> and
> > > > policy information and some domains. I use cost here in the layer
> 3
> > > > sense (number of calls, jitter, whatever). Cost would be an
> abstract
> >
> > > > value or a more specific one (up to the administrator).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Reinaldo
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:29 AM
> > > > > To: Patrick Melampy
> > > > > Cc: 'Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]'; [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering
> > > Architecture
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2006/05/26 18:05, Patrick Melampy <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > I suppose like in any distributed routing protocol, there are
> > some
> > > > > chicken
> > > > > > an egg issues. But consider the following.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PREREQUISITES:
> > > > > > 1.) You know the destination DOMAIN from either ENUM or other
> > > means.
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This technique is very similar to TRIP, only its for DOMAINS
> and
> > > not
> > > > > partial
> > > > > > E.164 numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously, the data set could get large, as the list of
> domains
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > really big. There are some possibilities here...
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's do a quick estimate on the number of domains involved:
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now, operators usually give customers URIs of the form
> > > > > <number>@<providerdomain>. As long as this is the state of
> > affairs,
> > > > > we're fine as the number of providers is quite finite (a few
> > > > > thousands, perhaps).
> > > > >
> > > > > This is like the state of affairs with respect to email, anno
> > 1990.
> > > > > Back then customers started to notice that if they use their own
> > > > domain
> > > > > for email, then they can switch providers without having to
> change
> >
> > > > > their email address. Thus a *lot* of people opted to use their
> own
> >
> > > > > domain for email.
> > > > >
> > > > > My guess is that the same will happen to SIP. Once customers
> print
> >
> > > > > their SIP uris on business cards, they will want to use their
> own
> > > > > domains. If providers won't support that feature then I suspect
> > that
> > > > > the regulators will step in and mandate an URI portability
> > solution
> > > > > just as they did in the PSTN with respect to numbers from number
> > > > blocks.
> > > > > (This could get really nasty protocol-wise, so I guess using
> > > customer-
> > > > > owned domains is the far better and likelier solution to the
> > porting
> > > > > question.)
> > > > >
> > > > > So: Anything we come up with here in SPEERMINT needs to cope
> with
> > a
> > > > > scenario where the use of customer domains in SIP URIs is just
> as
> > > > > widespread as it is for email.
> > > > >
> > > > > How many domains are used for email? That's hard to say. There
> are
> >
> > > > > about 60 million gTLD domains and probably more than 20 ccTLD
> > ones.
> > > > > Assuming that only a tenth of that is used for email we're at
> > > > > 8 million domains. Given the exponential growth any system which
> 
> > > > > doesn't scale to at least 10 million domains will be obsolete
> > before
> > > > > the ink is dry on the RFC.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what happens if we do some sort of BGP or TRIP with domains?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's say we need at least 100 bytes of state information per
> > > domain.
> > > > > That makes a full routing table 1 GB worth of data. That also
> > means
> > > > > that a new border element needs to exchange that amount of data
> > > > > with its peers before it has learned the current state of the
> > > > > routing table.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is some serious amount of data.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1.) Have notification point to a published document, and the
> > > > document
> > > > > lists
> > > > > > all of the relevant reachability in real time. Thus any change
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > document would generate a NOTIFICATION.
> > > > >
> > > > > + a download of up to 1 GB per peer.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2.) User partial domains, broken up by the "dots". This may
> > allow
> > > > some
> > > > > > wildcarding to reduce the number of domains. For instance, a
> > > carrier
> > > > > like
> > > > > > Verizon may have many 100's of domains attached to it, and
> > version
> > > > is
> > > > > > willing to route and manage SIP traffic to any of them. The
> > NOTIFY
> > > > could
> > > > > > contain something like: Verizon.com or *.verizon.com to
> indicate
> > > > that
> > > > > any
> > > > > > domain in Verizon is reachable.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's helpful if a provider uses subdomains for internal
> > purposes,
> > > > > but that won't help you with customer owned domains.
> > > > >
> > > > > > This technique may work -- and fit nicely into an existing
> > > protocol.
> > > > All
> > > > > we
> > > > > > would need to do is define the data models (XML?) and or
> > documents
> > > > for
> > > > > > exchanging.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this technique can work -- if you add an aggregation
> step
> > > > > before the routing scheme.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take another look at BGP: there you have the concept of an
> > > > > Autonomous System and not only that of prefixes. Maybe you need
> > > > > something similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > One approach to cope with hosted SIP domains could be to use the
> 
> > > > > hostnames as found in SRV records. E.g. for settings like
> > > > >
> > > > > _sip._tcp.customer.domain IN SRV 10 10 5060 sip.provider.com
> > > > >
> > > > > run the routing algorithm on "sip.provider.com" instead of
> > > > > "customer.domain".
> > > > >
> > > > > Another option is to store some AS-equivalent in the customer
> > domain
> > > > > and have the routing algorithm operate on that. In my
> > domain-policy
> > > > > framework this could be expressed e.g. like
> > > > >
> > > > > customers.domain IN NAPTR 10 10 "u" "D2P+SIP:route-id"
> > > > >       "!.*!urn:ietf:speermint:RID:1042!" .
> > > > >
> > > > > stating that this domain can be reached using the Speermint
> > routing
> > > > > logic by using the learned route to RoutingID 1042.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or, even better, use non-terminals, and thus refer to the
> ingress
> > > > > policy stored in the provider's domain:
> > > > >
> > > > > customers.domain IN NAPTR "" 10 10 "D2P+SIP" "" provider.com
> > > > >
> > > > > provider.com. IN NAPTR 10 10 "u" "D2P+SIP:route-id"
> > > > >       "!.*!urn:ietf:speermint:RID:1042!" .
> > > > >
> > > > > (+ whatever other facts provider.com wants to announce about his
> > > > > reachability.)
> > > > >
> > > > > This combination of our ideas can indeed work and scale to an
> > > > > unlimited number of customer-owned domains.
> > > > >
> > > > > /ol
> > > > > --
> > > > > < Otmar Lendl ([e-mail]) | nic.at Systems Engineer >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Speermint mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speermint mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speermint mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint


_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint