Subject: RE: about Inter-gatekeeper operation

From: Douglas Clowes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:49:34 +1100

Göran,

What am I doing in mail so old, .... someone else referred me to it.

anyway, you had questions:

At 17:34 02/10/98 +0200, Göran AP Eriksson wrote:
>
>Hi Douglas, cc: others.
>
>You wrote:
>
>Indeed, the Location Server Client Access Protocol should be encapsulated
>wrt how a Location Server does its job - i.e. whether it *has* the required
>information, has to go and get it, ior just invents it as it goes along. It
>should be independent, as far as possible, from whether the client is a PC,
>black IP phone, gateway or gatekeeper (although SIP/H.323 independence
>might be more of a problem).
>
>To put it differently, I see the Location Server being co-resident with a
>Back-End-Server that (logically) provides other services, such as
>authentication, authorisation, usage-recording and call-accounting. Your
>view may differ.
>
>
>Allowing for a situation in which the Location Server is not co-located with
>the gate keeper seems appropriate. Location Management can be many things,
>and solved in many ways. One should allow for that.
>
>However, what's your view on the need to secure the communication between
>the LM and the Gk?

That depends very much on what you put in the protocol. The location
translation may well be regarded as commercial property, and must be paid
for. That may be a reason for some to secure it.

Then there is the privacy issue. Some people are sensitive to others
knowing who they called, and when, and how long, etc.. Some are sensitive
to others knowing when they were called, or when their number was looked up.

I think it needs to be secure.

>Also, about the Back- End server; You mention that it may have several
>services, such
>as location management, AAA, etc? I assume that this implies different
>protocols as
>well, one for each service?

This issue has come up a number of times, and some people feel strongly
either way.

There are those who say "maximum use of existing protocols" and, since
there are protocols that can be used for various functions, advocate using
a lot of different protocols.

Others are sensitive to things such as call setup time, number of round
trips, etc.. These people advocate a special "purpose built" protocol.

Who's right? It depends who you ask. And, even then, you can get
conflicting answers from the same individual.

>Regards,
>
>G AP Eriksson
>Ericsson Radio
>
><The content of this mail reflect my personal view only.>

Regards,

Douglas

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.