WG: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow
"Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> Tue, 30 May 2006 13:40 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fl4SX-0003K5-69; Tue, 30 May 2006 09:40:33 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fl4SV-0003K0-SM for speermint@ietf.org; Tue, 30 May 2006 09:40:31 -0400
Received: from mail.oefeg.at ([62.47.121.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fl4SV-0003pC-1y for speermint@ietf.org; Tue, 30 May 2006 09:40:31 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: WG: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:44:03 +0200
Message-ID: <32755D354E6B65498C3BD9FD496C7D462C4A8D@oefeg-s04.oefeg.loc>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow
Thread-Index: AcaD7anPP3JhR7xaTkOd9mRCDsdMcwAARDLFAAAYlj4=
From: Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at>
To: speermint@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8cb9b411340046bf4080a729180a0672
X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group <speermint.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>, <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/speermint>
List-Post: <mailto:speermint@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>, <mailto:speermint-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: speermint-bounces@ietf.org
________________________________ Von: Stastny Richard Gesendet: Di 30.05.2006 15:41 An: Otmar Lendl; Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM Betreff: Re: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow Penn, I fully agree with Otmar. I just want to add that particularly every enterprise wants to have their domain name as SIP URI So this problem must be addressed Richard ________________________________ Von: Otmar Lendl [mailto:lendl@nic.at] Gesendet: Di 30.05.2006 15:29 An: Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM Cc: Stastny Richard Betreff: Re: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow Penn, if ATT were to market their VoIP service in Austria and I became a customer, I could add _sip._udp.lendl.priv.at. IN SRV 10 10 5060 vienna.sip.att.net. to my private domain and thus publish the fact that all callers should contact ATT's SIP proxy in Vienna if they have calls for <sip:otmar@lendl.priv.at>. Any Speermint peering protocol could operate on "vienna.sip.att.net" just as easily as on "lendl.priv.at". This is quite the same as lendl.priv.at. IN MX 10 smtp-in.att.net. (The NAPTRs in RFC3263 just provide one more level of abstraction) /ol On 2006/05/30 14:05, "Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM" <ppfautz@att.com> wrote: > Maybe, but the point is that it's point in this case to a service > provider owned element instead of a domain name owner (user) element. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at] > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:57 AM > To: Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM; Otmar Lendl > Subject: Re: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow > > >some VoIP equivalent of a MX record. > > SRV? > > Richard > > ________________________________ > > Von: Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM [mailto:ppfautz@att.com] > Gesendet: Di 30.05.2006 14:47 > An: Otmar Lendl > Cc: Reinaldo Penno; Stastny Richard > Betreff: RE: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow > > > > Otmar: > Where I fall off the train is (2). This assumes that everyone gets and > uses SIP URIs that are not service provider-dependent and service > providers want to peer using these. > I really don't think this is going to happen but if it did the obvious > solution is some sort of parallel to I-ENUM that maps customer domain > names to serving carrier. You might even have a some other DNS > infrastructure that maps user domain name to carrier, some VoIP > equivalent of a MX record. This is the right way to do domain name > portability. > These would avoid the need to bounce around large number of domain > names, just as ENUM avoid the need to exchange lots of E.164 info as in > TRIP. In either case, I think this is out of scope for Speermint, just > as ENUM is, and should be done elsewhere. > > Penn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:lendl@nic.at] > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:06 AM > To: Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM > Cc: Reinaldo Penno; Stastny Richard > Subject: Re: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain tomorrow > > On 2006/05/29 23:05, "Pfautz, Penn L, GBLAM" <ppfautz@att.com> wrote: > > > > 2. In terms of exchanging domain info. I'm not sure I follow the > > scenario. I don't expect so many domains to be relevant if peering is > > service provider to service provider. > > Well, that depends. > > Usually you have > > Public Name ---mapping protocol---> Routing address > Routing address ---routing protocol---> Nexthop decisions. > > In the case of the US PSTN, the public name is the E.164 number > and the NPAC is the mapping to the routing address (whatever that > is, I guess carrierID/SwitchID/LineID or something like that). > > Based on that, the call is routed within the network. > > The routing address is never seen by the customer. He can't dial it > and he won't print it on business cards. > > --- > > Email is similar: > Public name is the email address, mapping is done by the DNS. > Routing address is the IP address of the mail-server, and > via BGP a provider knows how to contact that mail-server. > > You could reach me if you send mail to lendl@[193.154.150.108], but > that is guaranteed to change once I move my box to a different ISP. > > --- > > So what do we have in terms of I-ENUM/Speermint? I see two different > scenarios: > > 1) The user only uses E.164 addresses. He never knows or dials SIP URIs. > > In that case we have: > > Public Name = E.164 number > Mapping protocol = I-ENUM > Routing address = SIP URI with the provider domain (maybe even > including > a specific SIP proxy within his network) > Routing protocol = either plain RFC3263 or whatever speermint comes > up with > > In this case you can deploy a routing protocol based on domains. > Number portability is only done at the I-ENUM step. > > If a customer switches provider, he'll get a new SIP URI. He won't > notice as he didn't knew his old one either. > > 2) The user knows his SIP URI, will print it on business cards and might > dial SIP URIs. > > It is no longer acceptable that the user has to change his URI when > he chooses to switch providers, or if the provider moves him to a > different SIP proxy within his network. > > Assuming we don't want to go into onward-routing (brrr!) or > routing protocols involving the username-part of the SIP URI (yuck!), > we have no choice but to allow the customer to use his own domain > for his SIP URI. > > Now we have two possible dial-strings: > > a) Public Name = E.164 number > AND > b) Public Name = SIP URI with the customer's domain > > For a) we could use the same options as in 1). > > Or: ENUM can map case a) to case b). > > For b) we can do > > Public Name = SIP URI with the customer's domain > Mapping protocol = DNS according to RFC3263 > Routing address = IP address of SIP proxy > Routing protocol = BGP > > (This is the end-to-end SIP view) > > Or: > > Public Name = SIP URI with the customer's domain > Mapping protocol = DNS according to draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-00 > Routing address = Federation ID + SIP domain > Routing protocol = Federation-specific (for which speermint can > provide an example) > > ------- > > As I read the Speermint charter, we need to provide a solution for 2) as > well. > > > > If everybody really doesn't use > > E.164 but chooses to reinvent the wheel again by having their own > > domain, then we'll need DNS RRs that specify a VoIP service provider > > similar to what infrastructure ENUM will do for E.164. > > Am I missing something? > > I consider "using customer-owned domains for public user IDs" not a > new idea. It's been successfully used in email, web and in most other > Internet communication protocols. Have a look at the IMS specs in terms > of Private User Identity vs. Public User Identity. > > That concept has proven to be very useful. > > Well, RFC3263 already contains a (actually, three) mapping steps. > Eg. let's reword an example from 3263 a bit: > > > As an example, consider a client that wishes to resolve > sip:user@customer.us. The client performs a NAPTR query for that > domain, and the following NAPTR records are returned: > > ; order pref flags service regexp replacement > IN NAPTR 50 50 "s" "SIPS+D2T" "" _sips._tcp.example.com. > IN NAPTR 90 50 "s" "SIP+D2T" "" _sip._tcp.example.com > IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "SIP+D2U" "" _sip._udp.example.com. > > This indicates that the server supports TLS over TCP, TCP, and UDP, > in that order of preference. Since the client supports TCP and UDP, > TCP will be used, targeted to a host determined by an SRV lookup of > _sip._tcp.example.com. That lookup would return: > > ;; Priority Weight Port Target > IN SRV 0 1 5060 server1.bigtelco.net > IN SRV 0 2 5060 server2.bigtelco.net > > > So there are already DNS RRs which can provide this mapping from > a customer domain to the carrier's domain. This can be done > at the NAPTR step, the SRV step or even at the A record step. > > All that draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-00 does is offer some more > options during the NAPTR step. The DNS query is exactly the same: > "please give me all NAPTR records for this destination domain". > > =================== > > Summary: We really need to decide whether we consider the SIP URIs > with which deal within Speermint as private, network-internal > addresses, or whether they are customer-visible and thus public > identifiers. > > A number of design choices depend on that decision. > > /ol > -- > < Otmar Lendl (lendl@nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer > > -- < Otmar Lendl (lendl@nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer > _______________________________________________ Speermint mailing list Speermint@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
- WG: [Speermint] LNP today and routing by domain t… Stastny Richard