Subject: RE: [Speermint] Notation?

From: "Medhavi Bhatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:01:10 -0400

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