Subject: RE: [Speermint] Notation?

From: "Medhavi Bhatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:02:27 -0400

IXP=Interconnect SP as well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Medhavi Bhatia
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:01 AM
> To: 'Pfautz, Penn L, NEO'; Otmar Lendl; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Notation?
> 
> IXP = L5 SP which sits for the duration of the complete call between
Core-O and Core-T
> (from my draft). It may do just signaling or both signaling and media.
> 
> This is different from a Federation or DNS Registry which may be
involved only for
> lookups. So there is some form of SIP profile terminated to the IXP
(we can deal with
> media later on).
> 
> Location of IXPs seems to be a problem today: How does Core-O locate
the IXP required to
> get to Core-T if it exists. It is almost like the SIP next hop
required to get to the
> administrative domain of choice.
> 
> Why IXPs exist? Because of commercial, regulatory or market reasons.
Sometimes they
> will exist even though they make no profit out of the business
(consider few of the GRXs in
> the GSMA peering case). These are just my thoughts. There may be more
informed people
> on the list (who interact with IXPs or have the IXP business) who can
speak to this...
> 
> -Medhavi.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pfautz, Penn L, NEO [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:51 AM
> > To: Medhavi Bhatia; Otmar Lendl; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Notation?
> >
> >  Can you define what you mean by IXP in this case?  This seems to be
> > another term that gets tossed around.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Medhavi Bhatia [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:48 AM
> > To: Otmar Lendl; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Notation?
> >
> > I think we need to formalize the notation for L5 peering and L3
peering.
> > For example, when we write:
> >
> > A
> > |
> > B-X-C
> >
> > It is not obvious to me who are the L5 peers and who are the L3
peers. X
> > could be an internet provider for B/C and there could be many of
those.
> > Signaling between B and C could be going through a different
provider
> > (say Y, which may or may not be L5 aware).
> >
> > Also interconnect SPs may sit in the middle (and frankly I think it
is
> > not worthwhile the debate how they get paid. They exist today
because of
> > market/regulatory reasons and disregarding them could be fatal in my
> > opinion). Another thing we can do is to place the IXP in []. So it
looks
> > like as follows:
> >
> > A--[B]--C
> >         |
> >        X
> >
> > Any thoughts/comments?
> >
> > -Medhavi.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:49 AM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [Speermint] Reachability
> > >
> > > On 2006/04/06 13:04, Patrick Melampy <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Continuing with your example ---
> > > >     A
> > > >     |
> > > >   B-X-C
> > > >
> > > > This is very useful. So you're suggesting that B could be paid
to
> > help
> > > > establish a SIP connection between A and C. This of course is
what
> > we are
> > > > trying to figure out in this working group. However, why would
> > anybody with
> > > > a brain pay B for this service when it is apparent that the
media
> > and thus
> > > > whole purpose of the communication is going from A-X-C?
> > >
> > > In this case, X is just doing layer3 work. X just provides basic
IP
> > > connectivity between A, B, and C. It is completely ignorant to
> > anything
> > > that happens above layer 3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't even matter whether the picture is in fact
> > >
> > >      A
> > >      |
> > >    B-X-Y-C
> > >
> > > or
> > >      A
> > >      |\
> > >    B-X-Y-C
> > >
> > > or even
> > >
> > >      A
> > >      |\
> > >    B-X-C
> > >
> > > In other words, X could be the public Internet.
> > >
> > > But going back to you question on why pay B and not just X:
> > >
> > > X fulfills the role of supplying the L3 connectivity between A and
C.
> > > B fulfills the role of managing the SIP-layer connectivity between
A
> > and C.
> > >
> > > Those two roles could be played by a single company. I do not
> > > rule that out.
> > >
> > > But when designing any framework it is vitally important to keep
> > > the roles separate. Collapsing them in practice is simple.
Divvying
> > > up a role into separate entities later on is difficult.
> > >
> > > /ol
> > > --
> > > < Otmar Lendl ([email-masked]) | nic.at Systems Engineer >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speermint mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date:
> > 4/5/2006
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speermint mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date:
4/5/2006

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint