Subject: Re: [drinks] [dispatch] Why are we TRIPped out? Is there an sip-event alternative?

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:10:29 -0500

...taking this discussion onto a related tangent....

These regulatory and contractual limitations on access to TN->Carrier assignments are one of the reasons that existing systems that currently provide the envisioned LUF feature (query a TN to find out the responsible carrier currently assigned to that TN, more or less) are *required* to allow the LUF responses to vary based on the querier.  Additional requirements that necessitate this are:

(1)     This TN->CarrierAssignment data set is often/usually "layered", in the sense that the a country code's Based Number Plan TN->CarrierAssignments comprise the foundation layer, that is then overlaid by (but not co-mingled with) number portability TN->CarrierAssignmens, that is then overlaid by (but not comingled with) TN->CarrierAssignments for TNs that are leased across carriers, that is then overlaid by TN->CarrierAssignments for TNs that override any of the proceeding for any number of business or operational reasons (although this last overlay is less structured and less relevant to the overall point).
(2)     Regulatory, contractual, and business reasons currently determine, for each country code, the layers and subsets of layers of TN->CarrierAssignments that any given querier is allowed to "see".
(3)     Some queriers simply do not want to see certain layers of TN->CarrierAssignemnts for given country codes.
(4)     Because many country codes do not have a regulatory or any well defined source for TN->CarrierAssignments, the data is sourced from multiple parties.  So even within a given country code, only portions of a given layer may be allowed to be seen by some queriers.

So one way of looking at the problem space of the LUF is that the above requirements are not what we want to solve and standardize.  What we want to solve and standardize is the much simpler and pristine end goal of ... all TN->CarrierAssignment information is queriable by any organization and all those organizations have legal access to all of it.  We solve and standardize this with the view of "build it and they will come".

The other way of looking at the problem is that we solve the requirements stated above.

Ken

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 6:27 PM
To: [email-masked]; Dean Willis
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Why are we TRIPped out? Is there an sip-event alternative?

Just a word of caution re number portability. In some countries access to this data is restricted to legally qualified carriers.  Will ITADs always correspond to such entities? Looking at the IANA list so far that's not my impression. You may find that the entities that do have access to NP databases may not be the ones interested in a TRIP-like mechanism and vice versa.

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:33 AM
To: Dean Willis
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Why are we TRIPped out? Is there an sip-event alternative?

Dear Dean, all,

Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med

________________________________
De : Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : vendredi 5 mars 2010 19:16
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed NCPI/NAD/TIP
Cc : Daryl Malas; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [dispatch] Why are we TRIPped out? Is there an sip-event alternative?

On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:38 AM, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Dear Dean, all,

In the last year, we have undertaken a study about IP telephony interconnect at large scale (URL: http://www.eurescom.eu/message/messageMay2009/Interconnection_challenges_of_IP_telephony_Eurescom_study_P1853.asp).
Med: http://www.eurescom.eu/message/messageMay2009/Interconnection_challenges_of_IP_telephony_Eurescom_study_P1853.asp<http://www.eurescom.eu/message/messageMay2009/Interconnection_challenges_of_IP_telephony_Eurescom_study_P1853.asp)>
I'm having a hard time resolving this link, as it appears to be 404. Perhaps there's a typo?

With respect to:

21. Extended TRIP protocol is suggested to be used as base for IP Telephony routing;

We've heard here that TRIP, as currently modeled, doesn't work due to the LNP problem. What sorts of extensions id you have in mind? Were they intended to address this problem?
[Med] An alternative would be to use TRIP in conjunction with a the current Number Portability infrastructure as used in PSTN infrastructure for placing inter-ITAD calls (this means that the owner domain will always advertise its aggregate in TRIP, but a NPDB (Network Portability Database) should questioned first).

Examples of extensions to TRIP (or whatever dynamic telephony routing) would be:
- Avoid AS (Autonomous System) spiral: the media traffic can cross the same AS several times
- Ability to maintain multiple inter-ITAD paths
- Ability to enforce some advanced TE such as: Avoid that my VoIP traffic to cross a given AS domain (TRIP only maintain an ITAD list)
- Ability to avoid congestionned links
- etc.

BTW, TRIP is only considered as starting point, this does not preclude to investigate any new solution to meet the recommendations we identified. BTW, In the recommendations list we have identified the need to encourage aggregation-based models.

*********************************

This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees.

Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.

Messages are susceptible to alteration.

France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.

If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.

********************************

________________________________
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.