Re: Welcome!

[Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>]

--On 17 May 2004 14:12 -0400 Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:

> You are not talking about TRIP are you?

I was hoping to do something rather simpler, perhaps with DNS architecture
leveraging ENUM (pretty much what John Todd described 2 minutes later as
impossible). I have some half-formed ideas...

> ..and how do the GW operators get
> paid?

Oh that, I think, is the easy bit. If I want to send calls to a gateway,
and they want to do anything other than bill & keep, I will expect to have
a settlement relationship with them (oh, and I will expect them to
authenticate the signaling). Else they won't want me to use them.

I can see reasons why VoIP operators might, however, be happy to terminate
VoIP calls made to their own subscribers for free, especially if they get
to specify the IP address to terminate it on as a high resolution function
of the called number.

> Naaah ... my opinion is that if they don't have a SIP URI from FWD,
> IPTEL, or something else like  skype else I probably dont want to talk to
> them anyway.

I presume that was tongue in cheek - for those delivering a VoIP service
with E.164 number, I would have thought the percentage of calls made to
other networks with similar characteristics is pretty small currently, and
that's exactly the % its worth our while increasing. This is assuming the
VoIP phone is being used as if it were a normal phone, not as a toy or
extended (voice) VPN.

--On 17 May 2004 19:11 +0000 Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> wrote:
> congradulations, you've reinvented TPC.INT.

Yes & no. Last time I looked, that was fax only (and thus not realtime),
relied on a single (not a distributed) database, and gave the same route
for any querying entity (i.e. all the logic was done their end). If you
mean like TPC.INT I want to do bypass as much of POTS as possible and drop
things off only as near to the callee as possible, yes, guilty as accused.

This is relevant for your original proposal too: might it not be useful for
the data-provider (being the person who requests the entry in your
database) to be, on occasion, not the end user, but the VoDSL operator /
ITSP? They aren't going to be able to fax you a bill, but, assuming the
request is suitably authenticated, could contribute a far larger block of
numbers. In the context of your original proposal, this would necessarily
limit use of this feature by operators to those who were prepared to
terminate the call for free.

Alex

--
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/>.