Subject: Open Issue in GLP: Scope

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:15:06 -0400

Folks,

One of the major open issues of the GLP attributes document is scope. To
date, we have two slightly different definitions of scope:

1. For 800 numbers, or other numbers which have global signficance
(i.e., you can call them from anywhere), but are not unique, the scope
is an attribute which almost extends the original number to make it
unique. This scope could be a unique ID which has no real signficance
other than being unique. But, in this case, if an LS receives two
routes, both to the same numbers but with different scopes, which one
should it use for routing calls? Perhaps some kind of semantic is
required for the scope beyond uniqueness?

2. There is an enterprise customer with several locations. They use a
private numbering plan, with some numbers in each location, and gateways
in each location to reach those numbers. The enterprise customer would
like to purchase IP telephony VPN service from a provider, so that the
provider can route calls between the customers' locations. So, for this
to work, the customer has an LS in each location which advertises the
private prefixes in that location. These are then propagated through the
provider's LS's (the provider itself may be a collection of ITAD's that
have formed some kind of federation or something). So, this introduces a
need for a scope to indicate that these private numbers are not callable
from everywhere, but just from within the domains of the customer. The
scope would also indicate that an LS in the provider domains should not
advertise these prefixes into other customer domains. In this case,
having the scope be some kind of customer identifier seems appropriate.

So, the questions are:

1. do we see a need for cases 1 and/or 2?
2. If so, what should be the semantics of the scope in each case?

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       Lucent Technologies
Member of Technical Staff                   101 Crawfords Corner Rd.
High Speed Networks Research                Holmdel, NJ 07733
FAX: (732) 834-5379                         Rm. 4C-526
EMAIL: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen

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

---

From: Tom Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:24:00 -0700 (PDT)

> date, we have two slightly different definitions of
...

> 2. If so, what should be the semantics of the scope

Case 1 and Case 2 may overlap in the case where a provider is providing
multiple private networks each with its own private numbering plan
which may contain overlapping numbers. Also, a customer may  wish that
home-based teleworkers be allowed to dial into its private network.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

---------