Subject: [Megaco] V.90//V.92 on Megaco

From: Noel Keith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:40 +0000 (GMT)

Hi All:

If anybody knows about v.90 and v.92 modems can they
be used on VoIP Trunking using Megaco like Call
Control  please clear my doubts...

Ran

_________________________________________________________ 
Horóscopos, Salud y belleza, Chistes, Consejos de amor: 
el contenido más divertido para tu celular está en Yahoo! Móvil. 
Obtenelo en http://movil.yahoo.com.ar

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 09:12:29 +0200

Like to provide complementary info from H.Sup7:
§ 5.3.3 is about interim NAT and/or FW devices between a MGC and a MG, see
also Fig. 3/H.Sup7.
No specific requirements on H.248 Control Association and related
procedures couldn't identified so far as Kevin already mentioned.
- Albrecht

TD 224 R1 (WP 2/16)

H-Series Supplement 7 "Gateway Control Protocol: Establishment Procedures
for the H.248 MGC-MG Control Association"

5.3.3 Network Address Translators and/or Firewalls

All potential scenarios may be abstracted on two use cases (Figure
3/H.Sup7):
·     without any interim NAT/FW device,
·     one or many NAT/FW devices. A series of NAT/FW devices may be
modelled by a single NAT/FW function.

Figure 3/H.Sup7 ? H.248 IP Transport Connections ? without or with NAT/FWs

####

      To: "B Venkat S.R Swamy" <b.swamy at flextronicssoftware.com>,
      "Randall Solano" <solardi_tech at yahoo.com>
      Subject: RE: [Megaco] Firewall on Megaco
      From: "Kevin Boyle" <kboyle at nortel.com>
      Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:34:31 -0400
      Cc: megaco at ietf.org
      In-reply-to: <
      [email-masked]
      List-help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
      List-id: Media Gateway Control <megaco.ietf.org>
      List-post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
      List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>, <
      mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
      List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>, <
      mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
      Thread-index: AcZ/tgrmkKMfZLEjSMme7c+ayynP8AAYpaRQ
      Thread-topic: [Megaco] Firewall on Megaco

Those profiles and packages discuss H.248 control of firewall and NAT
devices, not the use of firewall/NAT in an H.248 network.

H.248 has no requirements as to whether or not a MGC and MG are on
opposite sides of a firewall or NAT.  As long as the procedures of the
protocol are met, network operators can insert NATs or firewalls between
MGCs and MGs if they wish.

Kevin

________________________________

From: B Venkat S.R Swamy [mailto:b.swamy at flextronicssoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:43 AM
To: Randall Solano
Cc: megaco at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Firewall on Megaco

Hi

Depending on the network placement, one might have a firewall between
MGC and MG.
Firewall procedures are out of scope of core Megaco protocol and is an
implementation aspect.
However there are certain Megaco profiles and packages as defined by
MSF(MSF-IA-MEGACO.006-FINAL.pdf) and TISPAN(ETSI ES 283 018)
which talks in great detail, the Gate control, call admission control
and NATing procedures.

regards
B Venkat S.R Swamy
Senior Technical Leader
Flextronics Software Systems
Phone: +91-124- 4176213
Fax: +91-124-4300247
web: www.flextronicssoftware.com
 Randall Solano <solardi_tech at yahoo.com>

                                                 Randall Solano
<solardi_tech at yahoo.com>

                                                 05/25/2006 02:56 AM

To

megaco at ietf.org

cc

Subject

[Megaco] Firewall on Megaco

Hello All:

If i used MEGACO, between MGC/MG, Would it be necesary
to use firewall before MGC.
i.e.:

MGC-------firewall------MG

Cheers,

Ran

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 09:28:25 +0200

This question is firstly related to service/network interworking in USER
PLANE, and secondly about control aspects of such a interworking function
(IWF).
Guess you mean with "VoIP trunking" a PHY-to-RTP H.248 context (PHY might
be an H.248 analog line termination or a TDM termination; did assume 'RTP'
due to "VoIP").
If this assumption is correct, then your question relates to appropriate
TRANSPORT modes for V.90/V.92 signals over RTP, and how the IWF provides
that mode of operation (e.g., strictly controlled by MGC, autonomous state
transitioning in MG, need of H.248.2 events?, etc).

With regards to the IWF, like to propose that you've e.g. a look into
* V.152 for VBDoIP or
* V.150.1 for MoIP
whether this ITU-T Recommendations addressing V.90/V.92 ("I don't know").

- Albrecht

                      Noel Keith                                                                                                       
                      <noel_keith_nk@ya         To:      [email-masked]                                                               
                      hoo.com.ar>               cc:                                                                                    
                                                Subject: [Megaco] V.90//V.92 on Megaco                                                 
                      26.05.2006 19:22                                                                                                 

Hi All:

Ran