Subject: RE: [Speermint] [wg-business]WGLCfordraft-ietf-speermint-terminology-12

From: "Dan Warren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:53:09 +0100

> Dan,
> 
> > How about a description?
> > 
> > SP is operating at L3.
> > SSP is operating at L5 (and hence L3 so is a specialised SP).
> > Peer Network is an SSP with UA's.
> > 
> > Clearly not a final proposal (there aren't enough words and 
> it doesn't 
> > include any exceptions to the rules - a good definition always has 
> > exceptions, right?), but maybe a starting point for you all 
> to dissect 
> > and destroy.
> [JRE] OK, but in practice almost any SSP will be a Peer 
> Network (even if in certain use cases there is no UA 
> involved, e.g., when acting as an SSP(t)). So why do we need 
> the term Peer Network? I notice it is not used in the 
> architecture draft, although it is used in the consolidated 
> use cases draft. Why can't we stick to SSP?
> 
> If we really need both terms, I don't believe the presence or 
> absence of UAs is an appropriate distinction.

Should it then be presence or absence of subscribers/end users then?
Taking the term 'peer' literally, it means 'at the same level' or
'equivalent'.  SSP(O) and SSP(T) are equivalent networks as they are
fulfilling the same functions (albeit potentially in different ways) for
the same types of customers.  SSP(t) is not a 'peer' of SSP(O) and
SSP(T) because it is doing something distinctly different.  I think I
said once before, SSP(O) and SSP(T) are peering, SSP(t) is providing the
capability and connectivity for the peering to take place.

Dan

> John

Forthcoming GSMA Events:
 
GSMA Mobile Asia Congress
Macau
12 - 15 November 2007
www.mobileasiacongress.com
 
GSMA Mobile World Congress
Barcelona
11 - 14 February 2008
www.mobileworldcongress.com

This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email or call +44 207 759 2300 and highlight the error

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

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:19:25 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Warren [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 03 October 2007 11:53
> To: Elwell, John; Uzelac, Adam; Daryl Malas
> Cc: Malas, Daryl; "Peterson, , dmm"@1-4-5.net; 
> [email-masked]; Livingood, Jason
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] 
> [wg-business]WGLCfordraft-ietf-speermint-terminology-12
> 
> > Dan,
> > 
> > > How about a description?
> > > 
> > > SP is operating at L3.
[JRE] Even an SSP that acts as an SSP(t) is likely to have subscribers,
although they would not be involved in that particular case. Also the
term "subscriber" is not a SIP term and has connotations of charging -
not so applicable for enterprise peering. So I see "subscriber" as being
no better (perhaps worse) than "UA". Also an SSP(O) or SSP(T) can act on
behalf of a UA that is a gateway to PSTN, so there is no "subscriber"
(in the traditional sense) involved here.
Notwithstanding Otmar's comment, which I will address separately, I
guess an SSP becomes a Peering Network when it is acting on behalf of a
UA that has originated a SIP request that needs to be routed outside the
SSP or is the destination of a SIP request that has been received from
outside the SSP. Am I on the right track?

I think we end up with the following hierarchy:
         SP
         |
        SSP
       |    |
     Peer   SSP(t)
   Network
  |      |
SSP(O) SSP(T)

So SSP(O), SSP(T) and SSP(t) are specialisations of SSP, but Peer
Network is the particular grouping of SSP(O) and SSP(T). Assuming this
is what is intended, and assuming all these terms are required, their
definitions should reflect this hierarchy, e.g:
SSP(O): an SSP that for a particular SIP request <describe SSP(O)
behaviour>
SSP(T): an SSP that for a particular SIP request <describe SSP(T)
behaviour>
SSP(t): an SSP that for a particular SIP request <describe SSP(t)
behaviour>
Peer Network: an SSP that can behave as an SSP(O) and/or an SSP (T).

John

> This email and its attachments are intended for the above 
> named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you 
> in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you 
> copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email or 
> call +44 207 759 2300 and highlight the error
> 
> 
>

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:56:00 -0600

Okay, although I have not responded yet, I have been reading all of
these emails going back and forth.  Let me see if I can suggest some
updates to resolve some of the confusion.

First, a Peer Network contains UA's.  A transit or indirect peer
contains UA's, but is used for indirect peering to other UA's in a
terminating network not directly peered to the originating network.

Second, the hierarchy is currently setup in the document to define SP
first, and then SSP, ITSP, etc.  This was intended to establish the
hierarchy approach as described.  I personally think the hierarchy
should be:

       SP
       |
      SSP
       |    
     Peer   
   Network
  |      |
SSP(O) SSP(T)

The reason for this, is from the SSP(O)'s perspective the SSP(T)'s
network IS the terminating network, even if it is actually in-directly
proxying the call to another peer beyond itself.  SSP(T) is acting as an
indirect peer in this case, but it IS still the terminating peer to the
SSP(O).  It is acting on behalf of the true SSP(T) by way of an agreed
up relationship.  The reason we included a definition of the indirect
peer is to describe how this may take place when transiting a call to
the true SSP(T) by way of the virtual SSP(T) --indirect peer.  SSP(O)
has NO relationship with the REAL SSP(T) that owns the intended UA.  It
only has a peering relationship with SSP(T).  

This is a confusing concept, and it required a lot of discussion in
Montreal.  I do not think there is an easy way to describe it in the
terminology document, hence we use the term to describe the concept and
not the business application.  If we have not described the concept
clearly enough, then I will adjust several of the definitions to help.

--Daryl

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:42:28 +0100

Daryl,

I think I follow and agree with what you say, but I think in some places
where you wrote "SSP(T)" you meant "SSP(t)" (i.e., the transit, not the
terminating).

Or are you implying that we should not use the term "SSP(t)", because
the transit or intermediate SSP is really an SSP(T) (from the viewpoint
of the real SSP(O)) and an SSP(O) (from the viewpoint of the real
SSP(T))?

John 

> From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 03 October 2007 17:56
> To: Elwell, John
> Cc: Dan Warren; Uzelac, Adam; Malas, Daryl; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> Livingood, Jason
> Subject: RE: [Speermint]

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:05:54 -0600

> of the real SSP(O)) and an SSP(O) (from the viewpoint of the real
This is exactly what I am implying.

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:22:39 +0200

> This is exactly what I am implying.

Ok, then do I get this right: In a scenario like

SSP(O) - SSP(t) - SSP(T)

the indirect peering is between SSP(O) and SSP(t)?

Could you clarify 

|4.2.2. Indirect Peering
|
|   Indirect, or transit, peering refers to the establishment of either a
|   signaling and media path or signaling path alone via one (or more)
|   referral or transit network(s). In this case it is generally required
|   that a trust relationship is established between the originating
|   service provider and the transit network on one side, and the transit
|   network and the termination network on the other side.

in order to make this explicit?

/ol
-- 
/ Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 \
| nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H |
\ http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg /

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:34:29 -0600

Yes, I will update 4.2.2 (Comment inline.).

> the indirect peering is between SSP(O) and SSP(t)?
Yes