Subject: RE: TLS for peering (was RE: Comments(RE:[speermint]requirementsdraftsubmitted))

From: "McCandless, Kevin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:31:28 -0500

Richard said:

> However the vast majority of agreements both in teleco 
> interconnection and IP data peering are bi-lateral though the 
> may use neutral points to L2 interconnect. 

Yes, that's my experience as well.  This notion of federations is
relatively
new, and I wondered whether it followed the same model.  Andy's input
suggests that it does not.  

I wonder, though, if you stretch the bounds a bit, whether this would
change.  In its support of VoIP/MMS/etc., peering, the GSM Association
is
(from what I understand) similar;  do its members only peer / sign
agreements with, some "hub" entity representing the GSMA, or do they
peer /
sign bilateral agreements with, each other?

<K> What happens is a new member signs an agreement with a hub.  The new
member now submits IR21 orders to gain signaling access to other members
within the hub.  The member must also complete GSM association forms
such as AA14 and these are sent to the member network that the new
member wants to signal with.  Such things as financial clearing and
rates are agreed upon before any active signaling takes place.

> Hub and spoke agreement as Andy points out are designed to advantage
the
hub at the expense of its spokes.

<K> The spokes could not afford to interconnect with everyone that they
want to signal with.  That is one of the benefits the hub brings to the
table.

Whether or not that is the design intent, I agree it would seem to be
the
effect.

Tim

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:25 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: TLS for peering (was RE: Comments
> > (RE:[speermint]requirementsdraftsubmitted))
> > 
> > Tim Dwight wrote:
> > > Sorry to butt in but can you (or others ) address the issue of
federation
> > > members signing agreements "with the hub" (but not with each
other) 
> > > vs the hub enabling connectivity between "federation members" and
leaving 
> > > it to them to sign commercial agreements and take whatever related

> > > measures are necessary to exchange L5 traffic?  In your experience
how
is this
> > > usually handled?   I've heard it described both ways.
> > 
> > All of the commercial entities for which I am familiar require
signing 
> > an agreement with the "hub" and not with the other peers.  In fact, 
> > some of them attempt to obfuscate the identity of the peers from
each
other.
> > 
> > The e.164 DUNDI context is an example of the latter (it isn't
commercial, btw).
> > You sign an agreement with one of the peers and you 
> > are in the club.
> > 
> > -andy
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speermint mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> 
> 

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

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

---

From: Tim Dwight <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:01:30 -0500

> Richard said:
> 
> > However the vast majority of agreements both in teleco interconnection 
> > and IP data peering are bi-lateral though the may use neutral points 
> > to L2 interconnect.
> 
> 
relatively
> change.  In its support of VoIP/MMS/etc., peering, the GSM Association is
> agreements with, some "hub" entity representing the GSMA, or do they peer
/
> rates are agreed upon before any active signaling takes place.

Thanks Kevin, this is helpful.

So, in addition to providing L2/L3 connectivity, the GSMA or some agent
acting on its behalf facilitates (by providing the blank forms and
forwarding them after they've been filled out by the new member, to the
appropriate members) a set of bilateral agreements?  Is that an accurate
summary?

Sounds like, at scale, we morph into a model very reminiscent of the PSTN
(and L3 peering on the Internet).  In your view is GSMA an anomaly, or does
it illustrate the state to which peering federations naturally evolve?

tim