headers
Stastny Richard | 1 Jun 2006 15:06
Picon

How to correctly set up the request URI?

Folks,

Question for clarification:

In the discussions here on how to populate sip URI in Infrastructure 
ENUM to derive the Call Routing data for SPEERMINT  two
lines of thought exist:

The Enumservice SIP in Infrastructure ENUM should contain 
1. the address-of-record of the user: e.g. sip:+4319793321@...
2. the ingress point into the provider network:
e.g. sip:+4319793321@...

The originating UAC has in this case set the To: field to 
tel:+4319793321 and the Request-URI to e.g. 
sip:+4319793321provA.net;user=phone. This caused the
ENUM query at the proxy of provider A

The question is how the proxy of provider A is now
setting up the request URI in cases mentioned above?

Does the UAS from provider B accept calls to sbc7411.provB.net,
or must the request URI set to the proper AoR as described in
8.2.2.1 of RFC 3261? If yes, only option 1 is possible in ENUM.

I would also like to draw the attention to section 3 of
RFC3761 (SIP Enumservice) explaining the usage of AoR in
ENUM.

Regards
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Creighton, Tom | 1 Jun 2006 16:36
Picon

RE: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 09:06
> To: speermint@...
> Cc: enum@...
> Subject: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Question for clarification:
> 
> In the discussions here on how to populate sip URI in Infrastructure
> ENUM to derive the Call Routing data for SPEERMINT  two
> lines of thought exist:
> 
> The Enumservice SIP in Infrastructure ENUM should contain
> 1. the address-of-record of the user: e.g. sip:+4319793321@...
> 2. the ingress point into the provider network:
> e.g. sip:+4319793321@...
> 
> The originating UAC has in this case set the To: field to
> tel:+4319793321 and the Request-URI to e.g.
> sip:+4319793321provA.net;user=phone. This caused the
> ENUM query at the proxy of provider A
> 
> The question is how the proxy of provider A is now
> setting up the request URI in cases mentioned above?
> 
> Does the UAS from provider B accept calls to sbc7411.provB.net,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard Shockey | 1 Jun 2006 17:07
Picon

RE: Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture


Yes .. private ENUM would be in scope for the ENUM WG and in fact it already
is since the PSTN data draft that has now finished IETF last call
specifically deals with domains outside the scope of e164.apra visible on
invisible to the DNS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:32 AM
> To: Andrew Newton
> Cc: speermint@...
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> 
> Andy wrote
> 
> >Stastny Richard wrote:
> >>
> >> IMHO SPEERMINT does not deal with E.164 numbers at all in routing, it
> is out of scope
> 
> >Would the "private" ENUM tree run by a peering point and specifying its
> >location (i.e. DNS suffix) be in scope?
> 
> IMHO yes, because any ENUM is dealing with E.164 numbers
> 
> -sta
> 
> 
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Livingood, Jason | 1 Jun 2006 17:25
Picon

[wg-business] Montreal Meeting & Other Next Steps, Incl. Agenda for IETF 66

WG Update

As we look ahead to Montreal, Dave and I wanted to share with the WG
what our current objectives look like and what the draft agenda for
Montreal is.

*Please send us your feedback and suggest additional agenda items as
appropriate.*

For reference, see the WG charter at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/speermint-charter.html

Proposed WG agenda for Montreal:

0 - Agenda Bashing

1 - Terminology I-D review.

2 - Requirements I-D review. (+ Possible selected Use Case I-D reviews.)

3 - Architecture I-D review.

4 - Review Next Steps

>From Goals & Milestones: (My additional comments preceded by "JL-->".)
------------------------

1 - Jul 2006 Submit SPEERMINT terminology I-D

JL --> This draft is still in-process. We expect to present a reasonably
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stastny Richard | 1 Jun 2006 17:30
Picon

RE: How to correctly set up the request URI?

Thank you, Tom

just a minor additional question:

> In either case, after the provider A proxy performs an ENUM query and
> rewrites the request URI, it should behave as a UAC and follow the
> procedures outlined in Section 4 of RFC3263 to determine the IP
address,
> port, and transport protocol for the provider B UAS.

If I have to do this according to RFC3263 anyway, why put
the sbc4711.provB.net into ENUM in the first place?

-sta

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Creighton, Tom [mailto:Tom_Creighton <at> cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 4:36 PM
> To: Stastny Richard; speermint <at> ietf.org
> Cc: enum <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny <at> oefeg.at]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 09:06
> > To: speermint <at> ietf.org
> > Cc: enum <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Creighton, Tom | 1 Jun 2006 17:57
Picon

RE: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?

Maybe the service provider has some sort of segregated network
(physically or logically) and wants/needs to associate each its
subscribers with a particular network segment.  If the provider went
with the flat model of provB.net, each of its proxies would have to
accept requests destined to all of its customers and would then have to
route the request to the appropriate region or division of its network.
If the provider went with the hierarchical approach of
sbc4711.provB.net, all of the requests would already be routed to the
appropriate ingress point.  This could very well save a service provider
a lot of money in route proxy equipment although might cost more on the
provisioning side.

That is my guess.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:30
> To: Creighton, Tom; speermint@...
> Cc: enum@...
> Subject: RE: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?
> 
> Thank you, Tom
> 
> just a minor additional question:
> 
> > In either case, after the provider A proxy performs an ENUM query
and
> > rewrites the request URI, it should behave as a UAC and follow the
> > procedures outlined in Section 4 of RFC3263 to determine the IP
> address,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andrew Newton | 1 Jun 2006 18:01
Picon

Re: Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture

So, the discovery of an ENUM service for an opportunistic peering 
exchange would be worked out in the ENUM working group, but all other 
aspects of an opportunistic peering exchange are to be worked out here. 
  Seems kinda weird.

-andy

Richard Shockey wrote:
> Yes .. private ENUM would be in scope for the ENUM WG and in fact it already
> is since the PSTN data draft that has now finished IETF last call
> specifically deals with domains outside the scope of e164.apra visible on
> invisible to the DNS
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@...]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:32 AM
>> To: Andrew Newton
>> Cc: speermint@...
>> Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
>>
>> Andy wrote
>>
>>> Stastny Richard wrote:
>>>> IMHO SPEERMINT does not deal with E.164 numbers at all in routing, it
>> is out of scope
>>
>>> Would the "private" ENUM tree run by a peering point and specifying its
>>> location (i.e. DNS suffix) be in scope?
>> IMHO yes, because any ENUM is dealing with E.164 numbers
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Stastny Richard | 1 Jun 2006 19:12
Picon

Re: How to correctly set up the request URI?

I see,

but how do you solve this problem if the users can also be reached by AoRs direct?

-sta

________________________________

Von: Creighton, Tom [mailto:Tom_Creighton <at> cable.comcast.com]
Gesendet: Do 01.06.2006 17:57
An: Stastny Richard; speermint <at> ietf.org
Cc: enum <at> ietf.org
Betreff: RE: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?

Maybe the service provider has some sort of segregated network
(physically or logically) and wants/needs to associate each its
subscribers with a particular network segment.  If the provider went
with the flat model of provB.net, each of its proxies would have to
accept requests destined to all of its customers and would then have to
route the request to the appropriate region or division of its network.
If the provider went with the hierarchical approach of
sbc4711.provB.net, all of the requests would already be routed to the
appropriate ingress point.  This could very well save a service provider
a lot of money in route proxy equipment although might cost more on the
provisioning side.

That is my guess.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny <at> oefeg.at]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard Shockey | 1 Jun 2006 19:31
Picon

RE: Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture


No .. its not weird .. all you have to do is define the enumservice
registration E2U+"foo" with "foo" defined in Speermint

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 12:01 PM
> To: richard@...
> Cc: 'Stastny Richard'; speermint@...
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] Updated Draft: SPEERMINT Peering Architecture
> 
> So, the discovery of an ENUM service for an opportunistic peering
> exchange would be worked out in the ENUM working group, but all other
> aspects of an opportunistic peering exchange are to be worked out here.
>   Seems kinda weird.
> 
> -andy
> 
> Richard Shockey wrote:
> > Yes .. private ENUM would be in scope for the ENUM WG and in fact it
> already
> > is since the PSTN data draft that has now finished IETF last call
> > specifically deals with domains outside the scope of e164.apra visible
> on
> > invisible to the DNS
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@...]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:32 AM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lee, Yiu | 1 Jun 2006 19:34
Picon

RE: Re: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?

In this case, I guess when the originating proxy resolves the domain
part of the AOR (sip:+4319793321@...), it will return the IP
address of the root domain "provB.net" which may be a redirect proxy. So
"provB.net" has two choices:

(1) It accesses its local routing table and sends a 305 to the
originating proxy with "sbc4711.provB.net" in the contact header.

(2) It replaces the domain part in the r-uri to more specific like
"proxy.austria.provB.net" and forward the message to the next-hop.

Either case, the assumption is provB.net will have a way to find out
where the home proxy of user +4319793321.

This is only my guess.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@...] 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:13 PM
To: Creighton, Tom; speermint@...
Cc: enum@...
Subject: [Speermint] Re: [Enum] How to correctly set up the request URI?

I see,

but how do you solve this problem if the users can also be reached by
AoRs direct?

-sta
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane