80 likes | 192 Views
Location Routing Function Requirements. Hadriel Kaplan hkaplan@acmepacket.com. The Setup. SIP Request originated at Enterprise-1 to SSP-A What will this request URI look like? sip:+17815551212@sspa.com;user=phone tel:+17815551212 sip:bob@enterprise2.com
E N D
Location Routing Function Requirements Hadriel Kaplanhkaplan@acmepacket.com
The Setup • SIP Request originated at Enterprise-1 to SSP-A • What will this request URI look like? • sip:+17815551212@sspa.com;user=phone • tel:+17815551212 • sip:bob@enterprise2.com • For URI’s 1+2, an LUF function is needed, to determine terminating SSP-ID • For 3, no LUF is needed
The Problem • Let’s assume LUF determines the terminating domain/SSP is SSP-E • How does SSP-A get there? • SSP-A may not have a pre-existing relationship with SSP-E • Not peers • Not in same Federation/Registry-zone • Today’s answer: PSTN for E.614, email URI’s rejected • DRINKs should figure out something else
Another Problem • The size of some SSP’s is large – hundreds of SBE’s • Currently 4 SSP’s have over a hundred each • Topology changes are relatively frequent • The SBE-routing relationship is complicated • Not all SBE’s connect to all peers • Some SBE routes are preferred based on source, for both hot-potato and cold-potato models
A Potential Problem • Email-style URI’s: bob@example.com • Are they real? Will they be? • Some people think so • Won’t they be routed direct? (rfc3263) • Maybe, maybe not
The Solution • A dynamic location routing protocol • Not TRIP • Many problems, and it’s dead • Not ESPP • Not the right architecture, and don’t need to complicate ESPP’s LUF role • But we could reuse ESPP’s syntax • We need to start with requirements
Example Requirements • R5: The LRF mechanism MUST dynamically discover failures, and provide alternate routes around failures if such routes exist • R6: The LRF mechanism MUST support restricting the originating domains which can use or learn routes. • R7: The LRF mechanism MUST allow a SSP to select routes to use based on its own selection preference criteria, which may or may not be the same criteria other SSPs use
More examples… • R13: The LRF mechanism MUST NOT require an SSP to reveal internal SIP topology information to external SSPs. • R14: The LRF mechanism MUST NOT prevent migration to or co-existence with [RFC3263] direct-routing • Read the draft for all of ‘em