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

"Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com> Fri, 07 October 2011 11:46 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:19:42 +0530
Message-ID: <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C6538049202068FE74D@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E89E235.6000908@acm.org>
Thread-Topic: Agenda for 2011/09/23
Thread-Index: AcyB6TyodF4BuZMsRJm8pRFNS5iy0wC+oFqg
References: <4E7B5199.5000409@petit-huguenin.org> <3175C4C5F682C145B25808EB5737F16C0ECA7F83@xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206805382@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <4E89E235.6000908@acm.org>
From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
To: "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug@acm.org>
Cc: vipr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23
Precedence: list

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.

Muthu

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Marc Petit-Huguenin [mailto:petithug@acm.org]
|Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:56 PM
|To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
|Cc: vipr@ietf.org
|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: marc@petit-huguenin.org
|Professional email: petithug@acm.org
|Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
|-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
|
|iEYEARECAAYFAk6J4jQACgkQ9RoMZyVa61cL+QCfTYblcS5CYAfWyJtEgwEUpdQX
|pfoAniHnwohEklPZMndKsOcA6wo+3IXr
|=AS6j
|-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Marc Petit-Huguenin
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Hakim Mehmood (naim)
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Marc Petit-Huguenin
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Marc Petit-Huguenin
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Dean Willis
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Marc Petit-Huguenin
Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23 Dean Willis