draft-newton-speermint-itsp- problem-statement Andrew Newton 19 - September SPEERMINT WG Interim Meeting Philadelphia, PA, US

Purpose Provide a problem statement from the point of view of an ITSP (or VSP). –Specifically, a broadband VoIP network operator with a direct relationship with customers. The intent by the author is to drive SPEERMINT discussion and direction, not publish an RFC.

New Terminology Routed Peering –refers to the use of directories or SIP redirect proxies to act as a routing function which facilitates direct peering, indirect peering, or assisted peering. Limited Indirect Peering –refers to the inability to offer indirect peering, or transit, for all calls.

Types of Relationships Bilateral –One-to-one. –Always contractual. Multi-lateral –Many-to-many. –The HOT thing these days. Free-for-all –Tools don’t exist yet.

Call Termination Traditionally –Any indirect peer to whom we could route a call could terminate that call. Going forward –No longer true. –Need to know, at call time, very fast, where to route the call.

The E.164 Namespace Provisioning –It sure would be nice if everybody used the same protocol. –RFC Number Lookup –Public trees look more like deserts. And are sometimes broken. –Many useful private trees. Which requires multiple, parallel queries. Not ideal!

Troubleshooting The more hops the call makes, the harder it is to diagnose. Best practices on: –Points of contact. –Organization Header

Security Security between contractual peering arrangements is fine and unlikely to change regardless of how many RFCs MUST it. Completely open peering will require good security of both signaling and media. Thanks to popular TV shows like Law & Order, most Americans believe (incorrectly) that “signaling” is easily obtained by 3rd party but “media” is not.

CODECs A standardized list would go along way. And because CODECs run at the edge, it must not be a list that changes from “federation” to “federation”. –VSPs may join “federations”. –End users run CODECs.

RFC Compliance The number of SIP related RFCs and the intricacies involved with them are many. Vendors have a hard time keeping up and developing what is already on the books. Therefore, new RFCs MUST be meaningful.