1 / 17

Culture Clash— IMS vs. Peer-to-Peer TMIA 2006 Annual Meeting February 28, 2006

Culture Clash— IMS vs. Peer-to-Peer TMIA 2006 Annual Meeting February 28, 2006. James Rafferty Sr Product Manager jraff@cantata.com. Proprietary and Confidential. Agenda. Background Directions in Voice over IP IMS Peer-to-Peer War, Compromise or other? What Does it Mean? Business Side

parley
Download Presentation

Culture Clash— IMS vs. Peer-to-Peer TMIA 2006 Annual Meeting February 28, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Culture Clash—IMS vs. Peer-to-PeerTMIA 2006 Annual MeetingFebruary 28, 2006 James RaffertySr Product Manager jraff@cantata.com Proprietary and Confidential

  2. Agenda • Background • Directions in Voice over IP • IMS • Peer-to-Peer • War, Compromise or other? • What Does it Mean? • Business Side • Technical Side • Summary

  3. Background • After some false starts, Voice over IP is hitting the mainstream • Data points: • Skype has 60 Million registered VoIP users and was bought for $2.6B by E-Bay • Vonage has over 1 million paying customers • In the US, both incumbent Telcos and Cable MSOs are starting their VoIP rollouts

  4. Directions in Voice over IP • SIP has become the protocol of choice, with just a few exceptions • Fixed price packages for unlimited calling and common services are generally available • Prices for “minutes” continue to go down • Strong interest from carriers in rolling out value-added services to augment vanilla phone revenues • Traditional voice carriers now have some very “untraditional” competition

  5. VoIP Architectural Models • VoIP began as “replacement” telephone service, with VoIP gateways bypassing Class 4 switches • This evolved to the Softswitch model, which decomposed operations into multiple network elements • SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) began as Peer-to-Peer, but has evolved to have more complexity • Skype borrowed peer-to-peer concepts from file sharing services using a proprietary protocol • 3GPP standards group proposed the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) for next gen IP wireless services • Now strong interest from wireline providers such as BT • Where is this all going?

  6. Two Prevailing Models • Two very different models are gaining the most traction today for VoIP • IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) • Peer-to-Peer • Let’s review the drivers for these two directions

  7. IMS • IMS is the latest attempt by the big telecom players to create a rich service creation environment • Previous efforts like the Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) had limited success • So, what’s different about IMS? • Based on Voice over IP technology, which is replacing legacy switched technology used in AIN • Based on SIP, which already has a growing community of application developers and equipment vendors • Strong interest from both wireless and wireline carriers

  8. Top Level IMS Picture Wifi/ WiMax IP / MPLS PSTN Service Layer Application Server Application Server CSCF (SIP) Control Layer MRF HSS Other Elements Media GW Connectivity Layer

  9. Rich Media Services in the IMS QuickTime™ Web Content HTTP mp3 FTP MPEG-4 Text NFS Network Storage UnifiedMessaging Announcements Video Mail VideoConferencing IPCall Center Pre-Paid Voice Mail Conferencing Video Ringback Gaming SIPMSCML 3G SIP SIPVoiceXML SIP IMG S-CSCF/SCIM SIP Routing Cloud 2.5G IP MSC IMG SIPSIP w/ VoiceXML SIP w/ MSCML SIP PSTN RTP MGW CMTS Cable IP Phones SnowShore IP Media Server MRF

  10. Peer-to-Peer • Heritage of Peer-to-Peer (PTP) quite different • Massive Popularity of PTP file sharing services • Founders of Skype took “lessons learned” from Kazaa and created PTP VoIP • Featuring: • Free on-net calling model • Viral marketing approach • APIs to encourage affiliates • Proprietary technology to get past NATs and firewalls • Built in buddy groups, instant messaging and presence • Low Charges for offnet PSTN connections

  11. Peer-to-Peer VoIP Example Caller Caller Internet Caller Caller Supernode

  12. Other Peer-to-Peer Players • Yahoo has added voice to its Yahoo Messenger • Google has created a chat service which includes voice • Google also exploring other VoIP related services • Microsoft has voice add-ons for their IM service • Lesser known companies such as Voiceglo also have PTP VoIP services

  13. Current State of PTP VoIP • Skype/Ebay still by far the biggest player • Skype has a very aggressive affilitiate program • Other PTP services are mostly based on SIP • PTP VoIP services are currently VoIP islands • No interconnection except via PSTN • Early interest in VoIP peering to resolve • To date, Skype services are all “in the software” at the end point • For example, conferencing typically tops out at 5 users • Exploration of larger scale services which use servers • For example, conferencing vendor Vapps now advertising 500 person conferences for Skype AND PSTN users

  14. War, Compromise or Other? • Make no mistake, IMS and PTP are VERY different technical and business models • Market forces are driving both models forward • IMS is very comfortable model for traditional Telcos and likely for MSOs too • Uses Internet technology in a “walled” garden • Lots of room for innovative services using server based technogy • PTP is more revolutionary approach • Has much more in common with Instant Messaging • Driving end user costs to very low levels, but relies on solid IP infrastructure • Most services are at the application level and in the end point

  15. What Does it Mean? Business Side • IMS and PTP both need innovative applications • IMS much more hospitable for application server and media server vendors • Looks to be a good fit for offering services to enterprises • Still, PTP needs innovation too, but fees may be at the “micro-cents” level • Telcos and MSOs control the pipes in US • Issues about charges for 3rd party applications to gain access to the network • Concept of 2-tier Internet being tested • Carriers would like to charge extra for better performance • Could result in degraded PTP voice quality

  16. What Does it Mean? Technical Side • SIP continues to be the big winner on the technical side • IMS makes substantial use of SIP for various types of service elements • Also makes limited use of Megaco/H.248 • IMS also leverages lots of energy in areas such as XML-based service development • Skype has avoided SIP so far, but will likely use SIP peering mechnisms to talk with SIP VoIP networks in the future • In meantime, Skype developers write to a proprietary Skype API

  17. Summary • IMS and Peer-to-Peer are rival models for next gen VoIP Services • IMS has greater traction among established telco players • PTP has greater “buzz” and fast growing subscriber bases • Backed by the big Internet players such as Google and Ebay • Both IMS and PTP need innovation at the Application level, creating business opportunities

More Related