Subject: Re: [IPTEL] draft meeting minutes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:32:30 EST

Maybe Im a little old fashioned in some of my beliefs, but...   (Comments 
inline)

[email-masked] writes:
> 
> Yes, I think our perspectives are consistent.  What I have a problem with 
> is getting wrapped around the axle with propagating routing information 
> across the network, that in the end may not provide a useful discriminator 
> for choosing one route over another.  What makes one gateway hop-off point 
> better than another?
> 

I Realize that routing intelligence in the L/S is what everyone's going for, 
but all in all, shouldent (In a carrier scenario, at least) the carrier 
originating the call be able to route it on critera they specify??   (E.G. 
QoS, E.164, Route costing via TG/Carrier preference, etc.)  (-D)

> Are we minimizing PSTN (or other) network administrations that we must cross?
> Are we minimizing conversion points (RTP to TDM) that may introduce noise?
> Can a network capacity re-seller reduce the number of billing relationships?
> 

Someone had once introduced the suggestion that a G/W, or L/S could have the 
possibility to "Advertise" its going rate, while this sounds pretty viable 
for retail, this takes away any possibility of autonomous Least Cost Routing 
via Carrier Wholesale billing arangements/agreements...   How would this be 
solved? (-D)

> My starting axiom was that the call was routed into the IP world or started 
> there for a reason, and that IP was the preferred path to effectively make 
> all calls local.  Your point that the existing CIC codes are inherently 
> geographical on a large scale also points to the possible need to define 
> geographic attributes on a smaller scale as well.
> 
> Mike
> 
Thanks,
-Darby

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 11:10:46 -0500

Darby,

I don't think anything I said precludes a carrier from making the routing 
decision based on their defined policy.  Rather, I am saying that such 
decisions must be made based on the availability of meaningful data.  If 
the data is not available locally at the originating routing point or 
available, but not very meaningful (i.e. all GWs can reach all carriers), 
then that negatively affects the ability to make those decisions.

So, if you have criteria, but no data to match those criteria, then the 
data contained in the TRIP reporting is deficient.

Mike

At 07:32 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>I Realize that routing intelligence in the L/S is what everyone's going 
>for, but all in all, shouldent (In a carrier scenario, at least) the 
>carrier originating the call be able to route it on critera they 
>specify??   (E.G. QoS, E.164, Route costing via TG/Carrier preference, 
>etc.)  (-D)
>
>
>Someone had once introduced the suggestion that a G/W, or L/S could have 
>the possibility to "Advertise" its going rate, while this sounds pretty 
>viable for retail, this takes away any possibility of autonomous Least 
>Cost Routing via Carrier Wholesale billing arangements/agreements...   How 
>would this be solved? (-D)
>

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Jay Batson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 11:56:03 -0500

>specify??   (E.G. QoS, E.164, Route costing via TG/Carrier preference, 

I assume you're *not* talking about the "routing" of the actual IP packets, 
but instead are talking about the forwarding of signalling information 
between IP network-attached servers or elements of some kind ... 
right?  Because, of course, you *can't* (nor can you expect) to ask for 
packet routing preferences across IP networks.  The guys who work on BGP 
and other packet routing protocols across the network aren't going to pay 
much attention to such requests, methinks....

Of course, I'm a total non-participant in all this, and could be completely 
missing the point here (e.g. maybe you're talking about routing in the PSTN 
and I'm just missing it).  If so, my apologies for my lame comments.  I 
just can't seem to avoid posting things to lists I'm totally unqualified to 
comment on.  (The old software engineer in this exec just won't die no 
matter how hard I try.... ;-)

-jb

----------
Jay Batson
Pingtel Corp.
[email-masked]

781-938-5306 (office)
781-938-9650 (fax)