Subject: RE: [Speermint] Speermint Charter

From: "Hadriel Kaplan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 02:28:20 -0400

Hi Brian,
Your comments were astute, as always.  :)

To your question of "does it matter if they go through SBCs for our work?":
I have been thinking this question myself for the past week or so since I
joined this mailing list.  Obviously I work at a company which makes SBCs,
so I'm going to have a biased view, and I'd rather whatever we document
works with them.  

If it doesn't, it would be a waste of your time in my opinion, because as
far as I can tell SBCs will still be used by service providers; and their
use is fairly dominant in peering, not just access.  Most
infrastructure-based voip service providers use them for peering, and many
non-infrastructure ones do as well.  For example, of the service providers
on this mailing list, I know a majority use SBCs at their voip peering
points.  Even if you don't believe the vendors or the market analysts (who
would? ;), it doesn't take many providers using them for it to be an issue,
since peering is a 2-way deal and the odds of at least one side having one
are big.

So, to your actual question: it depends.  If the end goal of this WG is to
define BCPs of call flows for peering, then that's easy: someone can just
send an ethereal trace. :)  If it's to define best future (vs.
current/common) practices, then yes it may hit issues if the reality (from
my perspective) isn't taken into account.  It's like talking about IP
peering without acknowledging routers exist.  The irony from my perspective
is what SBCs do "differently" is used by many for very valuable
peering-related benefits.

I think you put it exactly right when you said: "I think our problem is more
to define what we do first than what we do."

-Hadriel
p.s. 2 UAs at the same hotel need not be media-relayed, depending on the SBC
vendor; though one would wonder why they'd call themselves using hosted-voip
instead of picking up the desk-phones. ;)  But hosted-nat-traversal is not
the most common reason for using SBCs. (not even in the top 3 reasons,
though probably 4 or 5)
p.p.s. Long time no see! (we met several times back in early megaco days)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 5:39 PM
> To: 'Stastny Richard'; 'Reinaldo Penno'; 'Malas, Daryl'; 'Khan, Sohel Q
> [CTO]'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Speermint Charter
> 
> The charter is clear we are talking about BOTH the media and the
> signaling.
> If you combine that with "inter-carrier vs inter-domain" then you have
> BOTH
> the case of a direct media connection as well as one that goes through
> (horrors) SBCs, even when two UAs are in the same hotel.  Most enterprises
> seem to like SBCs anyway.  Unless someone gives me a really good
> explanation
> of why it actually matters if they do run through SBCs with respect to our
> work, I think we probably can ignore the difference.
> 

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

---

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:42:58 +0200

>P2P SIP is about connecting participants,
>while Speermint is about connecting services.  No?

But the P2P connected participants, e.g. a small enterprise may want
to connect to the rest of the world.

And also speermint is not only about services (servive providers)
also enterprises may prarticipate

And since we do not care how the sip network within the
enterprise is organized, it could be client server SIP or P2P

Richard

________________________________

Von: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Di 04.04.2006 04:10
An: Stastny Richard
Cc: Khan, Sohel Q [CTO]; [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: [Speermint] Speermint Charter

On 03/30/2006 15:34 PM, Stastny Richard allegedly wrote:
> Hi Sohel,
> 
> This is no so simple
> 
> 1. P2P SIP has a complete different charter
> 2. What if a P2P network is provided by a provider who wants to peer
> with another provider?
> 
> Richard

Unless I'm mistaken this is fairly straightforward.  The key is
"provider".  Speermint is about peering arrangements between provided
SIP services (inter-domain, inter-carrier, whatever).  P2P SIP is about
establishing connectivity between SIP users.  What does it mean to
"provide" a P2P network?  Perhaps it means establishing some seeds for a
Chord ring, but communication between P2P SIP participants does not have
to be via provided servers.  P2P SIP is about connecting participants,
while Speermint is about connecting services.  No?

swb