ietf 63 - paris voippeer bof a broadband service provider’s perspective on voip peering august 5,...
TRANSCRIPT
IETF 63 - ParisVOIPPEER BoF
A Broadband Service Provider’s Perspective
on VoIP Peering
August 5, 2005Presented by Jason Livingood
2
The Context for VoIP Peering• If it originates on IP and terminates on IP, why convert it to
something else in the middle?
– Adds cost and complexity (operational & network).
– Decreases control over:
• User Experience
• Services & Quality
• Network / Troubleshooting
• So… Keep communications IP-based, end-to-end.
• IP networks are generally private & free of traditional telecom regulation.
• Helps make possible new, broadband IP-based services, not possible via PSTN.
• Many big economic and strategic motivations…
3
The Context for ENUM in VoIP Peering• Without ENUM:
– Each switch (CMS) is largely an island unto itself.– Linking many CMSs is difficult to scale.– Vendor-specific methods to share TN / IP data.– Legacy / PSTN-centric solutions (inefficient via IP).
• ENUM can tell me, for a dialed TN, what IP network element (CMS, Proxy, SBC, etc.) to send a call to.
• Can help to enable easily scalable:– CMS-to-CMS calling (all PacketCable).– PacketCable-to-SIP calling.– Fixed-to-wireless calling.– MSO-to-MSO calling.– MSO-to-any IP-based carrier calling.
• BUT, ENUM is just one part of the solution (lest we forget SIP).
• Laying the foundation now: (1) Working to use ENUM as part of a solution to simplify call routing; peering work is incremental. (2) Working on backbone for peering and other uses (takes time).
4
Preparing a Backbone for Intra/Inter-Network Peering
Features
• Links all the regional networks into a unified network.
• Consolidates peering and interconnection with other operators.
• Managed QoS delivery end-to-end with no third-parties involved.
• Supports centralized management functions.
Benefits
• Very flexible and low cost linear and OnDemand video distribution.
• Backbone transport payments to transit providers reduced.
• Reduce overall operational costs and complexity by supporting centralization.
• Increased revenue opportunities by providing high quality, national end-to-end services.
National Backbone Network
• Over 19,000 route miles of national fiber
• Covers 95+% of Homes Passed
• All major peering points
• Transport capability of >2500+ Gbps in 2005
• 40Gbps IP links in 2005
•QoS based voice, video and data over IP
Comcast territory
5
Private ENUM & VoIP Peering
• Development work underway with CableLabs (more later).
• Could prioritize peering priorities based on economics (similar to peering analysis used in HSI peering) and/or business strategy.
• Comcast and other parties could begin using private ENUM to peer without waiting for public “1.e164.arpa” being up and running. (Short-term hedge.)
• Communications peering over IP could enable the federation of multimedia services not feasible over the PSTN due to bandwidth constraints.
– Leverages unique capabilities of broadband networks.
– Could include both TN-addressed and URI-addressed communications.
6
Public ENUM & VoIP Peering
• Bi-Lateral / multi-lateral, private trees will only scale so far before operational and management challenges present themselves.
• Thus, Public ENUM is a long-term goal.
– What form will this take? (Carrier or User ENUM)
• Without carriers in e164.arpa is the business model for “User” sustainable?
– Will there be a mix of different peering types?
• Private POPs, with committed capacity.
• Public peering points.
• Over the Internet generally, best effort (no QoS).
• Bottom line: Working towards public ENUM in the future (very important), while hedging our bets with work on private ENUM in the shorter term.
7
Specific Near-Term VoIP Peering Challenges
• Provisioning into / security for ENUM tree.
• Normalization of different SIP profiles between providers.
• Trust at network edge.
• Security / encryption at network edge.
• QoS at network edge / passing QoS between parties.
• Lawful intercept.
• Selection of best IP routes & advertising routes as # POPs increases.
• Failover to PSTN routes in the event of IP route failure.
• Explore the role of SBCs.
• Some PacketCable™-related work on interfaces needed.
– Evolves into part of PacketCable 2.0.
8
PacketCable™ 2.0 Standards Development
• Driven to support:
– Backward-Compatible (PacketCable Multimedia & PC 1.X)
– Enhanced Telephony
– Video Telephony
– Cross-Platform (voice/video/data convergence) Features
– Cellular Integration
– Presence and Availability
– ENUM / Peering
– Commercial Service Extensions
9
In Summary • What VoIP Peering Is About for Us:
– It is about a lot more than saving money.
– It is more than just “voice” communications.
– It is about enabling new services not possible on the PSTN.
– It is about creating / increasing network effects; supercharging adoption.
– It is about end-to-end control over communications and staying all-IP.
– It is about reducing complexity & increasing efficiency vs. “PSTN-imitation” models. (“Keeping IP in VoIP”)
• VoIP Peering is important to companies like Comcast.
• Building network and systems infrastructure now.
• Both ENUM and SIP are important to this effort; basic standards / protocol groundwork is there.
• Some incremental standards work is necessary and vital to success.
