[Speermint] RE: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF

["Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[e-mail]>]

Richard,

Let me turn this around to you.

How much policy data do you stuff into ENUM?

How general a database do you expect DNS to become?

Do you expect that all peers will be pointed to the same entry point
into the network?

The thought was that before you blast the SF with INVITEs, it might be
useful to learn something about the nature of the interface
expectations.  For the most part these are bins into which things can be
organized while this group gets started.  If later it is concluded a bin
isn't needed, then it can be removed and whatever was collected handled
by some other bin.

Mike
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 5:09 PM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer); Brian Rosen; Francois D. 
> Menard; Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]; David Meyer; [e-mail]
> Subject: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture - LF - OF - SF
> 
> Folks,
>  
> One general statement in advance:
> Coming from the VON Europe last week with discussions about 
> walled garden and IMS, my overall expression is that this 
> draft in IMS in text-mode.
>  
> I have another question for clarification to this draft, 
> because I am confused:
>  
> I do not understand that the LF is discovering the OF
> 
>    o  Location Function (LF):  Purpose is to enable discovery 
> of the OF 
>       peering point. 
> 
>    o  Operation Function (OF):  Purpose is to enable discovery and 
>       exchange of policy and parameters to be used in with the SF 
>       peering point. 
> 
>    o  Signaling Function (SF):  Purpose is to enable the discovery of 
>       endpoints and assist in discovery and exchange of 
> parameters to be 
>       used with the MF peering point. 
> 
> I always had the naive idea (also triggered by the SPEERMINT 
> chartert that e.g. ENUM is a LF and discovering the SIP URIs 
> uses in the SF
> 
> How is now OF coming in between thsi, especially what is 
> listed in the draft, especially CALEA, Accounting and Applications?
> 
> "Operational data mediation:  TBD 
> 
>    o  CALEA implementation:  TBD 
> 
>    o  Accounting:  Call Detail Record's (CDR's) MAY be 
> collected to be 
>       utilized by the peering operators.  Based on the 
> application, the 
>       format should be an open standard for common consumption of 
>       billing systems.  Operators may use this data for a number of 
>       reasons, including billing in the event the peering 
> relationship 
>       becomes asymmetric (unbalanced traffic flow) or there 
> is a Tier 1 
>       to Tier 2 relationship.  In order to limit the potential for 
>       billing systems to impact the OF, a separate server should be 
>       created to maintain all records collected from a single 
>       interconnection to any number of OF's. 
>     An OF can also be a special function that contains bi-laterally 
>    disclosed information about the application servers and 
> databases of 
>    each IP service provider. An example of this function is 
> to allow a 
>    session to select a better suited application server from a set of 
>    application servers located inside both service providers' 
> network.  "
>  
> Richard
> 

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