Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

From: "Roy, Radhika" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:23:53 -0500

Yes, they are all B2BUAs (e.g., Transcoder, 3rd Party Call Controller, etc.). However, all of them have specific names based on the services that are being provided by each one of them among the SIP UAs.
 
So, this one (e.g., SBC) should also need to have a name, I believe.
 
Best regards,
 
Radhika R. Roy
SAIC

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
Sent: Sun 2/27/2005 1:35 PM
To: [email-masked]'; 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

If we can't call them SBCs, I'll give my hum for calling them B2BUAs...
 
Regards,
 
Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of [email-masked]
	Sent: 24. helmikuuta 2005 23:23
	To: 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

	We have now a good agenda item for the SIPPING WG: Humming on various name proposals  :-)
	 
	Henry

________________________________

	From: Medhavi Bhatia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:39 PM
	To: [email-masked]; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

	I'd still vote for something like P-SBC and N-SBC. We already know these are kinds of SBCs. The word customer premise needs to be captured, so P-SBC should be "Premises-SBC". I can't get the same understanding just by the word perimeter.

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
	Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:14 PM
	To: 'Brian Rosen'; 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

	>How about client side and network side?

	1. The intermediaries used in carrier networks (often referred to as SBC in a confusing manner) could be called "Network based Session Controllers" or NSC.

	2. The intermediaries at the perifery of private IP networks, colocated with the NAT/FW could be called "Perimeter Session Controllers" or PSC.

	Any other, more accurate names?

	Thanks, Henry

________________________________

	From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:43 AM
	To: [email-masked]; 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

	Henry

	As always, you wield a sharp sword.  I think you are correct, we need to differentiate a client side SBC from a network side SBC and we need names.

	How about client side and network side?

	Brian

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
	Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:45 AM
	To: 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

	Medhavi,

	It appears the location of such intermediaries makes the critical difference:

	1. SBC placed in the network (in the C.O.) of the carrier, or 

	2. A perimeter device (such as Borderware or SIP media Proxy - these are product names ) that is collocated as CPE with the NAT and Firewall. This co-location changes many security aspects (we need to specify which) and also the media performance, as well as bandwidth consumption. Multi-homing is an issue here, not to forget.

	I suggest we should always make this distinction. Maybe someone proposes some definitions or names for each.

	Thanks, Henry

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: "Medhavi Bhatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:58:53 -0500

If NAT ALG is the only function the SBC is providing, it doesn't need to be
a B2BUA. In the case of transcoding too, I don't see why the SBC needs to be
a B2BUA. I think the same can be done using a proxy (though the role of
modifying SDP would violate RFC 3261). Going forward, things like topology
hiding and interworking may become more specialized applications reducing
the need for SBCs to be B2BUAs. 

I think of the SBC as more like a set of requirements, for example security
related, dos attacks, spam etc. The implementations today have become more
of an issue since they are not compliant with SIP. I think the markets
and/or technology will evolve to be a better fit in near future.

-Medhavi.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Roy, Radhika
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:24 PM
To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); [email-masked]; Medhavi Bhatia; Brian
Rosen; Richard Fogel; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

Yes, they are all B2BUAs (e.g., Transcoder, 3rd Party Call Controller,
etc.). However, all of them have specific names based on the services that
are being provided by each one of them among the SIP UAs.

Best regards,

Radhika R. Roy

SAIC

  _____  

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
Sent: Sun 2/27/2005 1:35 PM
To: [email-masked]'; 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Richard Fogel';
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

Regards,

Christer Holmberg

Ericsson Finland

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: 24. helmikuuta 2005 23:23
To: 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

We have now a good agenda item for the SIPPING WG: Humming on various name
proposals  :-)

Henry

  _____  

I'd still vote for something like P-SBC and N-SBC. We already know these are
kinds of SBCs. The word customer premise needs to be captured, so P-SBC
should be "Premises-SBC". I can't get the same understanding just by the
word perimeter.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:14 PM
To: 'Brian Rosen'; 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

>How about client side and network side?

1. The intermediaries used in carrier networks (often referred to as SBC in
a confusing manner) could be called "Network based Session Controllers" or
NSC.

2. The intermediaries at the perifery of private IP networks, colocated with
the NAT/FW could be called "Perimeter Session Controllers" or PSC.

Thanks, Henry

  _____  

Henry

As always, you wield a sharp sword.  I think you are correct, we need to
differentiate a client side SBC from a network side SBC and we need names.

Brian

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:45 AM
To: 'Medhavi Bhatia'; 'Richard Fogel'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

Medhavi,

It appears the location of such intermediaries makes the critical
difference:

2. A perimeter device (such as Borderware or SIP media Proxy - these are
product names ) that is collocated as CPE with the NAT and Firewall. This
co-location changes many security aspects (we need to specify which) and
also the media performance, as well as bandwidth consumption. Multi-homing
is an issue here, not to forget.

I suggest we should always make this distinction. Maybe someone proposes
some definitions or names for each.

Thanks, Henry

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:00:44 -0600

Two names for two very different devices: In the carrier network or at the
perimeter of the customer location.
 
The location changes many security aspects (we need to specify which) and
also the media performance, as well as bandwidth consumption. Multi-homing
of customer networks is an issue here as well.
 
Henry

  _____  

From: Roy, Radhika [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:24 PM
To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); [email-masked]; Medhavi Bhatia; Brian
Rosen; Richard Fogel; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Draft: Functions of Current SBCs

 
Best regards,
 
Radhika R. Roy
SAIC

  _____  

 
Regards,
 
Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

-----Original Message-----

Henry

  _____  

  _____  

Thanks, Henry

  _____  

Henry

Brian

  _____  

Medhavi,

Thanks, Henry