1. Session Peering Use Cases for Federations David Schwartz – Kayote Networks Eli Katz - XConnect Jeremy Barkan - Digitalshtick draft-schwartz-speermint-use-cases-federations-00.txt IETF 67 – San Diego, November 2006

2. Different types of peering architectures found in real world Much discussion about kinds of peering Need for a catalog of real use cases Need a model [ pattern ] to talk about these use cases Use cases express different kinds of business relationships and drives in the VoIP peering space Use Cases and Patterns for VoIP Peering

3. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

4. L (Location) – Location of termination Voice Service Provider I (Interoperability) – Signaling/media compatibility with T-VSP S (Security) – Security of transport, authenticity of VSPs T (Trust) – Privacy, Identity, Auth management, SPIT R (Routing) – Priority based traffic management C (Cost) – Cost of call six functions or services associated with call setup across peering networks:

5. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Content – Declaration of policy requirements Negotiation – Method for peers to reach a policy instance that meets the policy requirements of both peers Enforcement – application of policy requirements at run time, such as in the call set up Each peering function has a policy framework associated with it consisting of :

6. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Location Function Policy Content Examples Query mechanism/format of data (NAPTR, SIP 3XX) Location of authoritative information (Remote, Local) Type of data returned (Domain, IP) Resolution of domain (static, DNS SRV) Whose location returned (T-VSP, Intermediary) O-VSP has access to (All data, Selected peers) Data retrieval (Unlimited, Rate limited)

7. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Security Function Policy Content Examples Type (IPSec, TLS) Symmetric (IPSec IKE, mutual TLS) Asymmetric (TLS + Digest)

8. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Logical network entity providing one or more of the six peering functions described above. May be co-located at one of the peered VSPs, or it may be a separate, independent entity. Peering Service Provider

9. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Direct – Peering Service Provider

10. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Complexity associated with Direct model

11. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Dealing with complexity Limit functionalityFarm out to 3rd party

12. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Indirect – Peering Service Provider

13. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG Putting it all together

14. IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG factoring out location function Handling non location functions for some relationships Using 3 rd party for these non location functions in others Conclusions: Different relationships require different peering models Direct peering does not scale very well There is need for more than just location function One solution is to “farm out” all functionality to 3 rd party Another solution involves

15. Questions?