Re: [Speermint] Congestion and Load Balancing

On 2006/08/10 04:08, Patrick Melampy <PMelampy@acmepacket.com> wrote:
> Maybe its simple when its two networks to understand why dynamic protocols
> aren't required. Lets consider the following -- and try to imagine just how
> complicated a real life situation would be.

I like your scenario: these are exactly the question we have to answer
in Speermint. 

> I know that if there were no transit or peering carriers, these problems
> would be solved by ENUM and DNS and standard internet routing. But this
> working group is tasked with studying the vary problems that occur when we
> add session peering to establish trusted interconnects to build large
> networks that are manageable and predictable.

I don't think that ENUM will help us here. After all, it should not
matter whether numbers or URIs were dialed in the first place.  So we
only have the SIP URIs to work with in the Speermint space.

Our drafts add extensions to the SIP routing algorithm which provide 
solutions for the cases you describe.

The -02 versions should appear on the ietf pages soon, for a preview have
a look at http://www.enum.at/ietf/draft-lendl-speermint-federations-02.txt 
and http://www.enum.at/ietf/draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-02.txt.

We've incorporated results from the discussions in Montreal: 
The non-terminal NAPTRs in the Domain Policy DDDS are now defined to do
signaling referral as well as policy referral.

Please have a look.

/ol
-- 
< Otmar Lendl (lendl@nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
Speermint@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint