RE: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture

["Reinaldo Penno" <[e-mail]>]

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