1 / 8

Routing policy and architectures in use for SIP Peering

Routing policy and architectures in use for SIP Peering. draft-bhatia-sip-peering-00.txt Medhavi Bhatia mbhatia@nextone.com. Status as of -00 version. Basic architecture and terminology Current requirements Mailing list discussion. Terminology. Optional; One or more L5 aware access SPs.

peebles
Download Presentation

Routing policy and architectures in use for SIP Peering

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. Routing policy and architectures in use for SIP Peering draft-bhatia-sip-peering-00.txt Medhavi Bhatia mbhatia@nextone.com 65th IETF (Dallas)

  2. Status as of -00 version • Basic architecture and terminology • Current requirements • Mailing list discussion 65th IETF (Dallas)

  3. Terminology Optional; One or more L5 aware access SPs Origination Optional; One or more L5 aware SPs who broker calls between SPs Termination Access-O SP Interconnect SP (XSP) Core-T SP Core-O SP Origination’s SP Origination and Termination’s SP Access-T SP 65th IETF (Dallas)

  4. Typical Call Flow • Origination  [Access-O ] Core-O  [XSP ] Core-T  [Access-T]  Termination 65th IETF (Dallas)

  5. SP Route Policy Dependencies • All SPs before Core-O generally use origination based policy • Core-O uses origination and destination based policy • All SPs post Core-O generally use destination based policy • Call Hunting • Call Priority • Business Reasons • Cost/Profit etc • SLAs (QoS, Security, ASR etc) • Local Policy • Admission Control • Bandwidth/Capacity 65th IETF (Dallas)

  6. Federations • Destination based policy only • Combination of Border Elements (SBC/Edge Proxy) and ENUM directory • Shareable policies on ENUM • Originating and termination SPs local policies on BEs • Used for direct peering (inter-SP scenario) • Used by XSP (intra-SP scenario) 65th IETF (Dallas)

  7. Peering Architectures in use ENUM Registry Edge Proxy / SBC • Federations • GRX 65th IETF (Dallas)

  8. Issues discussed on mailing list • Access SP is optional (resolved) • XSP is optional (resolved) • SIP Trapezoid is preserved • XSP not the same as Transit SP described in Terminology draft • Mechanism in ENUM to involve the XSP? • Difference in routing/policy • if termination is an E.164 v/s URI? • SIP URI is derived from User ENUM or Infrastructure ENUM? • Carrier Selection out of scope • Is the policy to do these applications in scope? 65th IETF (Dallas)

More Related