IETF Logo Mail Archive

[martini] DID Number Mobility and MARTINI

Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Tue, 09 February 2010 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1B53A7207 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:49:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AI-MwUjrcUSt for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nylon.softarmor.com (nylon.softarmor.com [66.135.38.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7863A708D for <martini@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.108] (cpe-66-25-30-183.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.30.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by nylon.softarmor.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id o19FowSV004519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <martini@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:51:01 -0600
Message-Id: <1E8E2700-18FA-4DC1-8147-18EC9423C266@softarmor.com>
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
To: MARTINI <martini@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:50:51 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: [martini] DID Number Mobility and MARTINI
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:49:55 -0000

One of my understanding of goals for corporate VoIP systems was the  
ability to move a user from one PBX to another PBX without having to  
pay a service provider MACD (move, add, change, delete) fee.

In fact, it was my demonstrating this very capability to MCI's chief  
engineering officer back in  1999 that got the first SIP project there  
funded.

Let's talk through a use case:

Assume Alice is working today in our building at #901 I-street, which  
has a PBX. Her DID number is routed to that PBX. Over lunch, her  
office gets moved down the street to the lab at #400 I-Street.

Three cases might apply:

1) Alice moves her phone and plugs it in and it "just works", because  
the phone dynamically registers with the new PBX, which then  
dynamically registers with the SSP proxy for that DID number,  
effectively moving the binding from #901's PBX to #400's PBX.

2) Alice moves her phone to #400, waits until after lunch, then calls  
the phone support people, who manually reprovision her onto the #400  
PBX. This PBX then re-registers with SSP, and her number starts  
working again.

3) Alice moves her pone to #400, and waits until after lunch to talk  
to the phone support people, who reprovision her on the PBXes and then  
call the SSP support people to move her DID number from #901's "trunk"  
to 400's "trunk". Sometime, tomorrow, her phone line starts working  
AND we get a $50 bill for the "change fee" from the SSP.


Our original design goal favored #1, we might have accepted #2, and #3  
was what we were most aggressively trying to avoid.


Yet my understanding of the consensus of MARTINI is that #3 is the  
desired outcome. This is the difference, if I understand it, between  
draft-gin's "()" proposal for implicit registration and the "XXXX"  
proposal for explicit registration I made on-list.

Why are we pushing ourselves ten years backwards in operational  
advances?

And what happens when Alice has a WiFi phone and moves back and forth  
from #901 to #400 several times a day? Does she just go without a  
phone, or do we pay a $50 change fee each time?



--
Dean

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email