Re: Re: Re: VoIP peering & routing protocols (revisited)

[Joe Provo <jzp-voipp@rsuc.gweep.net>]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:24:47AM +0300, Kalogiros Constantinos wrote:
> ======= At 2005-04-20, 10:47:29 you wrote: =======
> >> Of course, complexity vs functionality is a tradeoff that cannot
> >> be ignored. However, in a competitive environment like VoIP
> >> market (where real money are exchanged and thus there are a lot
> >> of issues to be tackled) complexity is inherent.
> >
> >oh?  and why?  because money breeds bad architecture, crappy
> >design, ...?  this is the bellhead mind-set trap.  this is why the
> >margins are gone from the wire-line and now wireless telcos.
> >perhaps different architectural models might be considered this
> >time around, where complexity is taken as a sign of looking at
> >things in the wrong way.
> 
> I meant that the heart of the problem is the distributed nature
> (if this is desired), not a specific software implementation. A
> commercial distributed system cannot be compared to a file-sharing
> p2p system. As long as PSTN interconnection is important and there
> are many possible gateways, a lot of mechanims that would enable
> trust must be in place.

Not sure where p2p comes into this; I'd suggest avoiding it.  
BGP is out there, in use, and run by places where "real money" 
changes hands.  It also is quite 'open' regarding path data.   
Part of the problem, as Randy was pointing out, is the business 
model of making money by virue of others' ignorance.  Whatever 
is built will invariablly be in a more competative market and 
lend itself to informed consumers; perhaps those 'consumers' 
aren't the end-users but aggregators in a model akin to the 
ISP/NSP one with which we packetheads are familiar.

Joe

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

--
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/>.