Subject: RE: VOIP question ??

From: Ami Amir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:21:00 +0200

Hi Ronald

Like many other protocols, H.323 is a compromise  (to quote from myself - a
camel is a horse designed by a committee :->). I can relate to history and
explain - but this unimportant. At the end, to the specific issue - the
easiest way to solve the problem raised by Sebastien - have a GK out there,
let it resolve the called phone number, translate it to IP and be done with
it.

Cheers

Ami

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	ronald h. davis [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:16 PM
	To:	Ami Amir
	Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Sebastien
Ducarne; IP Telephony
	Subject:	Re: VOIP question ??

	Ami Amir wrote:
	> 
	> Ronald,
	> 
	> Since I was present on the H.323 scene from its early days, I beg
to differ:
	> 
	> 1.      The Gatekeeper's function from day one was ADDRESS
RESOLUTION (even
	> the name was driven by the function of Gateway Keeper).
	>

	could you explain why bandwidth was made a mandatory element in an
	admission request (arq) (along with other bandwidth management
	gatekeeper procedures)?  in fact, was arq necessary at all?
	address resolution could be accomplished by a location request (lrq)
	and no arq.  but it was not until a later version of h.323 that i
saw 
	the capability added that allowed zone members to register with 
	pre-approved arq.

	i'm not denying the address resolution role of the gatekeeper, i'm
	just questioning the need for the ras channel, which every h.323
	gatekeeper must support.

	-- 
	  __  ______  __  / __/ |       lucent technologies, naperville il,
usa
	_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       [email-masked]
	"if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes"  -- edmund
wilson

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

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