Subject: RE: [IPTEL] TRIP question

From: "Ghai, Rajat (Rajat)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:01:37 -0400

For the most part, it would be the policies at the proxy/LS
to decide which gateway to use.

thanks
Rajat Ghai

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Vijaya Venkatachalam [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:57 AM
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Subject: [IPTEL] TRIP question
> >
> >
> >Can one telephony destination be handled by more than one
> >telephony gateway.
> >
> >If yes, then if both gateway1 & 2 can reach a telephony destination,
> >then how is it determined which is a better route to
> >reach that telephony destination, via gateway1 or gateway2.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: "Anderson, Darby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:51:14 -0700

Wouldent it be plausable in the Softswitch,SIP Controller, or whatever it is
that someone's using,when its using TRIP as an Egress protocol, that you
could assign a route cost to each destination? (I.E. I have on-net trunking
to destination 1 with a capacity of 24 chanels, I typically have 26-30 calls
in any given time to that area, Carrier A is giving me a price of .013 cents
a minute to destination 1, however Carrier B is giving me a price of .011
cents a minute to destination 1, thus my route would have priority to my
on-net trunking to destination 1, and would first route calls to Carrier B,
then if Carrier B was unable to handle the call, the Softswitch would pass
the call to Carrier A??)

-----Original Message-----
From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:23 AM
To: Anderson, Darby
Cc: 'Vijaya Venkatachalam'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [IPTEL] TRIP question

Offload/backup gateway is one case. Another case is that of two different
ITSPs
advertising competing routes to the same destination, i.e. each of them will
have gateways that can terminate calls to this particular destination.

Hussein

"Anderson, Darby" wrote:

> According to what I understand of the Trip Protocol, this would be a
viable
> situation, the scenario youve given would be applicable in the real world
if
> you have on-net trunking to a particular destination, however not enough
> volume to justify additional capacity, so you offload the overflow to
> another carrier (ITAD in this circumstance), in which case it would seem
> logical to assign a cost of 0 to your on-net trunking, and a higher route
> cost to any/all other off-net route choices...??
>
> Anyone else out there, please correct me if Im wrong
>
> -Darby
>
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 8:57 AM

--
Hussein F. Salama
Cisco Systems
Mail Stop SJC-24/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134
Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-7147

---

From: "Anderson, Darby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:06:20 -0700

In which case, I pose the possibility, if someone were to have a larger
POP/POPs where in which they wanted to Colocate with multiple carriers, and
bring in many circuits from many carriers, and use the same LS, with
multiple VoIP Boxes to terminate the circuits with many differing
destinations, and many differing costs (due to different Carriers), would it
be possible to partition off a ancillary route table where I could make
comparisons between TRIP Packet based off-net call termination, Vs. a TRIP
Routed Circuit based on-net call termination to another carrier?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:23 AM
To: Anderson, Darby
Cc: 'Vijaya Venkatachalam'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [IPTEL] TRIP question

Hussein

viable
if

---

From: Richard Brennan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:25:26 -0700

Darby, Vijaya et al...

Using "dummy" rates to force route determination sequences through
LCRs is a well established practice, i.e. 0 for preferred, 1 for 2nd choice,
2 for 3rd choice, 9999 for last.... etc.  These "costing" elements would
never be exposed on an inter-domain basis.

In practice, I think it unlikely that the GW could pass any useful real
"cost" information, since the burden of constantly re-provisioning this
into the GW or Client  on a monthly, daily, or even hourly basis would
be unworkable...

Imagine a "small" network of several hundred MGs deployed across
Europe, each serving mixed PSTN & Mobile termination to both large
cities and rural E.164 numbers...  Just keeping-up with the spot-rate
changes over this range of terminations is a monumental task.

- Richard Brennan

At 10:13 AM 8/9/2001, Anderson, Darby wrote:
>According to what I understand of the Trip Protocol, this would be a viable
>situation, the scenario youve given would be applicable in the real world if

---

From: "Anderson, Darby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:04:06 -0700

Well...   I would agree with you that keeping track of that data at the GW
level would be an administrative nightmare, and would be a minor improvement
at a LS level.I agree it would be allmost unmanageable, however what if that
were to be provisioned on the ITAD's decision making entity (Softswitch in
this case), where in which one could dictate that TDM T1, or E1's used as an
egress from the origination network, and an ingress into an intermediate, or
finial termination network (Yet another Tandem Trunking ((LD'ish)) Network)?

In that perspective one could keep track of the provisioning data at each
gateway, and deceide on routing patterns in addition to backward TDM
compatibility to carriers that are not interested in VoIP

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brennan [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 1:25 PM
To: Anderson, Darby; 'Vijaya Venkatachalam'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [IPTEL] TRIP question

Darby, Vijaya et al...

- Richard Brennan

if