Subject: RE: [IPTEL] Requirement relating to multicast

From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:55:22 -0400

Cullen:

Please see my comments below [RRR].

Radhika

From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:39 PM

I think it should be a requirement of the GW to LS protocol that it does not
require multicast. 

[RRR] How does one to make discovery? Are you suggesting pre-provisioning?
Or, do you like to use DNS stuff-like things where the list of LSs or GWs to
be provided?

I can imagine scenarios where the size of the ITAD on the
network was larger than the space on the network where multicast would
route.

[RRR] Yes, you are right especially in the case of intra-ITAD. That is why,
in the draft (draft-roy-sipproxy-ls-gw-discovery-00.txt), alternative
schemes to multicasting for discovery have been proposed. We do not need
either a heavy-weight discovery mechanism or a very elaborate scheme for
multicasting for the intra-ITAD.

[RRR] More discussion along this will be posted soon.

Cullen

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

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:29:10 -0700

I think we could definitely use some more discussions about provisioning of
VoIP components. The discovery of PS, GW, LS and so on seems closely related
to provisioning issues.

I don't really see any reason that a GW discovering a proxy it connects too
has much to do with TRIP. (And I do see the irony of this statement along
with my other email thread on how many protocols do I need to implement :-)
I don't know, am I missing the boat on this one. I guess it comes back to
what are the requirements of TRIP.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 6:55 PM
To: Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [IPTEL] Requirement relating to multicast

Cullen:

Radhika

Cullen