Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/07/2011 04:49 AM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> |When an enterprise uses a provider, it is paying for |the service of routing
> the calls to the PSTN, so why |advertizing the number in the VIPR overlay
> could not |be part of this cost?
> 
> Sure, if it adds value to the enterprise and the provider can monetize it, I
> see no issue (it could be a provider hosted ViPR service, for e.g). At the
> first level, the enterprise might want to require that the provider published
> route be easily distinguishable from the enterprise published route, so that
> if both routes are available for someone calling into the enterprise they can
> chose one among them. I think in the majority of cases one would prefer a
> direct route, unless the provider offers differentiated services like
> audio/video transcoding, rate adaption, echo cancellation etc that a direct
> route doesn't have.

Yes, but the difficulty here is how to choose this route.  The proposal sent by
Hakim, i.e. sending the capabilities of the endpoint together with the SIP route
and ticket, would permit this, as only the VIPR domain the closest to the end
user would be able to send the real capabilities of the endpoint (extracted for
example from the SIP registrar).  The transcoding is interesting, as an
intermediary using it could eventually claim to better route than the direct
route.  Perhaps what we need is a new media feature tag that would indicate that
a capability set is "native" (i.e. built directly from the SIP registrar or
information coming from the endpoint), instead of been from a intermediate media
point, like transcoding.

> 
> Muthu
> 
> |-----Original Message----- |From: Marc Petit-Huguenin
> [mailto:[e-mail]] |Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:56 PM |To: Muthu
> Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) |Cc: [e-mail] |Subject: Re: Agenda for
> 2011/09/23 | |-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |Hash: SHA1 | |Hi Muthu, | 
> |On 09/28/2011 11:10 PM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) wrote: |> A
> fundamental question: Why would a provider want to advertise routes for a |>
> number for which neither of the enterprises is willing to pay for? | |I am
> not sure why you are saying that.  When an enterprise uses a provider, it |is
> paying for the service of routing the calls to the PSTN, so why advertizing 
> |the number in the VIPR overlay could not be part of this cost? | |> Isn't
> ViPR based on the fact the provider is trusted for the first (PSTN) |> call?
> If the provider is fooling with the enterprise, won't the enterprise |>
> switch to a different provider? Or are we concerned about the security |>
> implications around routing subsequent calls through the provider? Aren't |>
> they applicable to the first call as well? |> |> If the enterprise doesn't
> trust the provider then ViPR in its current form |> doesn't seem to make
> sense. |> |> Muthu |

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: [e-mail]
Professional email: [e-mail]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk6PA80ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61c9VACfXlY5MEOhkpMRBj8/p+p28YNq
ES8AnAuNKvjboXam6uPVpsUZzVK2Oi5S
=G59i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----