At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:
Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or something else...
OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have passed. Progress starts today. Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation. Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there...... Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are sleep, food and beer) Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?) So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians. Richard
Amen!!! To bad there is nothing like BGP for SIP. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Naylor [mailto:richard.naylor(a)r2.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2008 10:35 a.m. To: Scott Howard; Blair Harrison Cc: nznog Subject: [nznog] VoIP Peering - was Re: enum At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:
Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or something else...
OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have passed. Progress starts today. Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation. Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there...... Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are sleep, food and beer) Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?) So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians. Richard _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:01 +1300, James Jones wrote:
Amen!!!
To bad there is nothing like BGP for SIP.
There is. With Asterisk there is DUNDi[0] (peer-to-peer phone call routing), and also I believe that one of the BGP RFCs mentions you could distribute phone number routing over BGP although this probably hasn't been implemented. Also there is carrier ENUM if we want to continue beating that horse. ;) Setting up an ENUM zone is trivial, if we're walking about a .nz only thing for interested parties then that would be a goer. I see that e164.{org|net}.nz are registered to InternetNZ, so might be accessible. I'm happy to start creating some zonefiles to delegate number space (err, how to best validate that you should have control of that number space?). To answer Richard's question of how to do this, a number of VoIP providers in .nz have to agree that they're interested in getting this going. Then we can get momentum rolling. Just reading through the list of assumptions, both DUNDi and ENUM appear to satisfy all the assumptions, but I'm not sure if DUNDi is available for systems other than Asterisk. Cheers! [0] Hmmm, www.dundi.com now goes to Digium, how about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Universal_Number_Discovery
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Naylor [mailto:richard.naylor(a)r2.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2008 10:35 a.m. To: Scott Howard; Blair Harrison Cc: nznog Subject: [nznog] VoIP Peering - was Re: enum
At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:
Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or something else...
OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have passed. Progress starts today.
Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation.
Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there......
Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are sleep, food and beer)
Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?)
So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians.
Richard
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-- Andrew Ruthven Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.
This is a nice wish list, but without legislation that requires it's use and with the percentage traffic that goes between two VOIP providers being so miniscule (anyone have those numbers?) this is a LOT of work for very little return. Most providers who switch calls in the 20 CPS+ range are also unwilling to add any additional overhead to their call processing and don't fool yourself into think that VOIP peering is settlement free. You will save a little - but at what price labour-wise? You could achieve what you're after with a private ENUM tree that providers publish their subscriber numbers to, but this also means providers need to work ENUM into switch deployments that probably have existing IN functionality. They'd probably prefer a flat-file transfer which they then process internally and add to their IN platforms database for route lookups - much like how number portability systems work in Australia. How do you handle disputes that arise when two providers claim "ownership" of a single subscriber number? On the service assurance front - who do you yell at when it breaks? What are the consequences of it failing to work properly? -----Original Message----- From: Richard Naylor [mailto:richard.naylor(a)r2.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2008 8:35 AM To: Scott Howard; Blair Harrison Cc: nznog Subject: [nznog] VoIP Peering - was Re: enum At 08:52 a.m. 31/12/2008, Scott Howard wrote:
Eventually something is going to be needed to allow for optimal routing between the multitude of VOIP providers - be that enum or something else...
OK lets cut to the guts of the problem. How do we get VoIP peering sooner rather than later ? Tomorrow, yet another year will have passed. Progress starts today. Assumption 1 - The big T(s) make about 50% of revenue off the PSTN equivalent to about $2.5B, so don't expect any co-operation. Assumption 2 - it has to be neutral - the Govt should NOT be involved. Of course they are welcome to peer, in fact its a surprise that Govt depts don't have inter-Dept peering already, its a bit of a no brainer for them. Maybe GSN was going to get there...... Assumption 3 - it has to be simple, so that VoIP providers and end users can get involved. (besides I'm on holiday and my horizons are sleep, food and beer) Assumption 4 - It should be distributed and scaleable.. (are you peering with your city, your region, your country or the World ?) So we need something NOW, that can be migrated if required. But we shouldn't be waiting on committees or politicians. Richard _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
participants (4)
-
Andrew Ruthven -
James Jones -
McDonald Richards -
Richard Naylor