[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Enterprise VoIP Peering Point?
At 11:29 AM 8/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > The question then is which "pool"/ENUM domain should be given a
> > higher priority. Or can we be sure that all different pools assure
> > that the same E.164 number isn't registered twice?
>
> Well the answer I presume is the route delivering the best optimizing
> factor, which is some function of price and quality constraints and
> possibly other metrics.
>
> And that opens up another can of worms (in an echo from a month ago on
> this list) which is that there is no current mechanism (pace TRIP) to
> communicate these metrics.
in principal, some of these metrics could also be expressed in DNS.
exactly ..
but the differences between enduser/enterprise and serviceprovider needs
in this area deserves some study.
Paul that was the principal topic of discussion at the ENUM WG meeting in
San Diego.
if my company (isc) could express its
voip reachability in a way that the rest of the voip community could see,
then that would be a huge boon to us -- and the charges would be zero,
and we would maintain enough upstream IP headroom that questions of
quality wouldn't even arise.
i expect that almost all endusers and enterprises are in that same wagon.
waiting for the delegation of 1.e164.arpa which Is making slow but
deliberate progress.
the only reason to advertise metrics like "cost" is for outbound calls,
in case an enduser or enterprise has a call that they don't want to just
dump onto their legacy pstn connection.
but if every (or even most) voip-connected enduser and enterprise is (are)
advertising their own SIP gateway via dns, then the routes a serviceprovider
could offer (including "cost" metrics) would be the still-pstn-only ones.
this sets up an interesting middle, and an even more interesting endgame.
the middle is where legacy pstn providers compete in price-per-minute for
outbound calling against voip-gateway providers. the endgame is where the
voip-gateway business disappears altogether since everybody is voip-reachable.
no wonder the governments are staying in their hammocks. there's nothing
about voip that's good for them. "if only we could use it ourselves without
also enabling it end to end" must be what they're thinking...
Good man !! you have basically connected the dots on why e164.apra has been
so slow to deploy. Its hard to tax end to end IP applications. What's the
California PUC going to do when there is nothing to regulate? Never
underestimate the desire for job security among government bureaucrats.
> Interprovider RSVP anyone?
is anybody seeing enough IP congestion for this to matter, anymore?
no .. except those fool who buy SBC or Verizon DSL with 128 upstream .. my
own tests indicate if you can get at least 256 up you are home free and if
you are using SKYPE with the GIPS codec .. its nearly impossible to screw up.
with all
the bankrupt fiber and ebay GSR's in the world, i'm seeing that pretty much
everybody has enough headroom to do good quality voip, other than on an
enduser/enterprise basis where somebody's last mile might be full of spam.
but on a day without a DDoS, who is it, anywhere, who would care about rsvp
other than inside their own AS?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.