IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Mon, 03 October 2011 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
X-Original-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86F221F8B62 for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.303
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.297, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7sKkvwaYwq8X for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9BF21F8B26 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08] (shalmaneser.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "petithug", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15DBD202D1; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:19:38 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4E89E235.6000908@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:26:29 -0700
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
References: <4E7B5199.5000409@petit-huguenin.org> <3175C4C5F682C145B25808EB5737F16C0ECA7F83@xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206805382@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206805382@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: vipr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VIPR] Agenda for 2011/09/23
X-BeenThere: vipr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Verification Involving PSTN Reachability working group <vipr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vipr>
List-Post: <mailto:vipr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:23:29 -0000

-----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-----

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email