Subject: [Speermint] Address Space Issues

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:55:46 -0400

There is text in the flows document and the architecture document on address
spaces.  I propose that the architecture document have this text, and that
it says:

Peering must occur in a common address space, which is defined by the
federation, which may be entirely on the public Internet, or some private
address space,.  The origination or termination networks may or may not
entirely be in that same address space.  If they are not, then a translation
(NAT) may be needed before the signaling or media is presented to the
federation.   The only requirement is that all entities across the peering
interface are reachable.

 

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

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:47:05 -0400

thanks, just incorporated in the arch draft.

________________________________

	From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:56 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Speermint] Address Space Issues

	There is text in the flows document and the architecture
document on address spaces.  I propose that the architecture document
have this text, and that it says:

	Peering must occur in a common address space, which is defined
by the federation, which may be entirely on the public Internet, or some
private address space,.  The origination or termination networks may or
may not entirely be in that same address space.  If they are not, then a
translation (NAT) may be needed before the signaling or media is
presented to the federation.   The only requirement is that all entities
across the peering interface are reachable.

---

From: "David Schwartz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:23:02 +0300

I was requested to throw this to the list for some discussion.

The issue of transcoding came up today at the interim meeting and while
the general consensus was that SPEERMINT should not have any
requirements for endpoints at least one use case was discussed that
challenged the consensus.

The use case involves two endpoints that share a codec set but due to
the traversal of one or more federations employing transcoding of media
due to a disjoint set of codec's between the actual federations the
resultant media is transcoded perhaps more than once.

Is this an issue? If so does the solution space belong in SPEERMINT?
SIPPING? Etc. If this belongs in SPEERMINT does this end up putting
requirements on endpoints? 

Please send comments to the list so that a proper GAP analysis can be
done.

Thanks,

David