Since the other responses seem to have gone off into a discussion of firewalls, let me respond to this more directly by recalling a bit of past discussion.
1) On the Megaco list, we finally agreed that the text vs. binary question is something to be resolved by experiment.
2) In Turin (I think), the general opinion was that the protocol would have to be binary to achieve the required performance. Interestingly enough, however, no one that I recall felt that it should be PER ASN.1 (or even, I think, BER ASN.1). Good reasons were given at the time. It would be good if someone can remember them, but I think it has something to do with processing performance and less risk of fragmentation than call signalling.
3) We have had an occasionally recurring suggestion on the Megaco list that the Media Gateway control protocol should conform to the format of other messaging out of the MGC, for the reason you give (i.e. to minimize transcoding). Interestingly, the person advocating this was talking about billing data, not signalling. The counter-argument on the list is that the Media Gateway control protocol must work with different signalling protocols (for example in H.GCP's case, with any of the H-series systems), so there is no point in optimizing it for just one.
The real sticking point of debate is going to be whether the media description structures will be those defined for H.245 OLC etc., or SDP. Text vs. binary is a closely related but broader debate.
I'd suggest we start thinking about experimental design.
-----Original Message----- From: Ami Amir [SMTP:amir@RADVISION.RAD.CO.IL] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 4:15 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: H.320 gateways a MEGACO / ITU
Hi
During the last MEGACO conference call - Tom Taylor asked what could hinder ITU acceptance of the MEGACO work. It is obviously to everybody's interest that IETF and ITU standards merge. As an example - it would be great if the MEGACO work could become an ITU SG 16 contribution.
An obvious item is efficient multimedia support (as reflected also in John's mail).
However, I think that one of the even more major difficulties facing us will be the encoding scheme (ASN.1 vs Text).
There are many who feel that ASN.1 is too heavy and complex for simple devices, and should be avoided. This was one of the major reasons for the emergence of SIP.
On the other hand, experience in the ITU H.323 work has shown that since ASN.1 is the encoding scheme on the PSTN side, the use of ASN cleared the way for PSTN to IP interoperability. This feature will be extremely important in hybrid networks that need to provide Intelligent Network (IN) services (e.g. "800"), while retaining the investment in existing IN, billing and directory services (411).
Another problem is that if ASN.1 is not chosen, every device that will have to connect between a MEGACO component and H.323 will need to dis-assemble and re-assemble (transcode) messages, and hence network performance will suffer, and those devices will be more complex. A prime example - MGC to GK communications.
I am not promoting a specific approach. I just think that this complex issue needs to be addressed if we want to be able to be able accept a universal protocol.
Do you think this is really a problem? If so - any ideas on how to bridge the gap?
Ami
-----Original Message----- From: John Segers [SMTP:jsegers@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 6:27 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: H.320 gateways People, In yesterday's conference call, the subject of H.320 GWs wasraised briefly. In my opinion, the connection model and protocol should be able to deal with H.320. I would like to continue discussion on it on the mailing list.
H.320 allows a user to have a session with both audio and video ona single 64 kbit/s channel such as an ISDN B-channel. The same channel carries some signalling information (frame alignment, bitrate allocation). To a MG supporting H.320, this means that on a single endpoint, three streams can come in, carrying different types of media. The current connection model of megaco/H.gcp does not cater to this. I see two possible solutions:
The first is to allow multiple media in one context and todescribe for terminations the logical streams they carry. In a picture:
+----------+ | | | +--------- signalling (FAS, BAS) | | B-channel ==========+ +--------- audio (16 kbit/s) | | | +--------- video (46.4 kbit/s) | | +----------+ The second solution is to have separate terminations for thedifferent streams. They would all "connect to" the same physical endpoint. In order to properly identify the terminations, it is necessary to have logical names for them. The physical endpoint they connect may have the hierarchical name proposed in the megaco document.
Another example of a H.320 session is the case of two B-channelsbeing used for an audiovisual call. The following frame structure is then possible.
+--------------------------++-----------------------+ | Channel 1 || Channel 2 | +-----+--+--+--+--+--+--+--++--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |Bit 1|B2|B3|B4|B5|B6|B7|B8||B1|B2|B3|B4|B5|B6|B7|B8| +-----+--+--+--+--+--+--+--++--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 1 | a1 |a2|a3|a4|a5|a6|v1|F ||v2|v3|v4|v5|v6|v7|v8|F | 2 | a7 |a8|a9|a |a |a |v9|F ||v |v |v |v |v |v |v |F | 3 | a |a |a |a |a |a |v |F ||v |v |v |v |v |v |v |F | 4 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 5 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 6 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 7 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 8 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | +---------------------------------------------------+ 9 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 10 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 11 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 12 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 13 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 14 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 15 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 16 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | +---------------------------------------------------+ 17 | a | | | | |a |v |v ||v | |v |v | . . . 80 | a | | | | |a |v |v ||v | |v |v | +---------------------------------------------------+ (a=audio, v=video, F=FAS, B=BAS). We see that the video stream is split up over two channels. Inorder to cater to this, it seems we have to allow terminations to receive media from and send it to multiple physical endpoints. The two approaches outlined above can both be extended to allow this. Both extensions will lead to the introduction of logical names for terminations. In the first approach there will be one termination "containing" two B-channels on one side and three logical streams on the other. In the second approach there will be three terminations, the one for the video stream referencing both B-channels, the ones for signalling and audio referencing only channel 1.
The second approach allows us to keep separate contexts fordifferent media types. It is then easy to delete, for instance, the video part of a session (session used loosely to desribe the contexts for the audio and video).
The first approach groups the streams coming from/going to oneuser, making it possible to remove a user from a context more easily.
Personally, I can't decide which approach I would prefer. How doothers feel about these ideas?
Regards, John Segers -- John Segers email:jsegers@lucent.com Lucent Technologies Room HE 344 Dept. Forward Looking Work phone: +31 35 687 4724 P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA Huizen fax: +31 35 687 5954
What is important here is to follow the H.245OLC syntax, the codeing used I suspect is secondary.
Mike B.
____________________ Begin Original Message ___________________________ Date: Wed Mar 31 21:16:57 -0600 1999 From: internet!NORTELNETWORKS.COM!taylor (Tom-PT Taylor) Subject: ASN.1 vs Text To: internet!MAILBAG.INTEL.COM!ITU-SG16 Content-Type: Generic-Text Content-Length: 9495
Since the other responses seem to have gone off into a discussion of firewalls, let me respond to this more directly by recalling a bit of past discussion.
1) On the Megaco list, we finally agreed that the text vs. binary question is something to be resolved by experiment.
2) In Turin (I think), the general opinion was that the protocol would have to be binary to achieve the required performance. Interestingly enough, however, no one that I recall felt that it should be PER ASN.1 (or even, I think, BER ASN.1). Good reasons were given at the time. It would be good if someone can remember them, but I think it has something to do with processing performance and less risk of fragmentation than call signalling.
3) We have had an occasionally recurring suggestion on the Megaco list that the Media Gateway control protocol should conform to the format of other messaging out of the MGC, for the reason you give (i.e. to minimize transcoding). Interestingly, the person advocating this was talking about billing data, not signalling. The counter-argument on the list is that the Media Gateway control protocol must work with different signalling protocols (for example in H.GCP's case, with any of the H-series systems), so there is no point in optimizing it for just one.
The real sticking point of debate is going to be whether the media description structures will be those defined for H.245 OLC etc., or SDP. Text vs. binary is a closely related but broader debate.
I'd suggest we start thinking about experimental design.
-----Original Message----- From: Ami Amir [SMTP:amir@RADVISION.RAD.CO.IL] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 4:15 AM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: H.320 gateways a MEGACO / ITU
Hi
During the last MEGACO conference call - Tom Taylor asked what could hinder ITU acceptance of the MEGACO work. It is obviously to everybody's interest that IETF and ITU standards merge. As an example - it would be great if the MEGACO work could become an ITU SG 16 contribution.
An obvious item is efficient multimedia support (as reflected also in John's mail).
However, I think that one of the even more major difficulties facing us will be the encoding scheme (ASN.1 vs Text).
There are many who feel that ASN.1 is too heavy and complex for simple devices, and should be avoided. This was one of the major reasons for the emergence of SIP.
On the other hand, experience in the ITU H.323 work has shown that since ASN.1 is the encoding scheme on the PSTN side, the use of ASN cleared the way for PSTN to IP interoperability. This feature will be extremely important in hybrid networks that need to provide Intelligent Network (IN) services (e.g. "800"), while retaining the investment in existing IN, billing and directory services (411).
Another problem is that if ASN.1 is not chosen, every device that will have to connect between a MEGACO component and H.323 will need to dis-
assemble
and re-assemble (transcode) messages, and hence network performance will suffer, and those devices will be more complex. A prime example - MGC to GK communications.
I am not promoting a specific approach. I just think that this complex issue needs to be addressed if we want to be able to be able accept a universal protocol.
Do you think this is really a problem? If so - any ideas on how to bridge the gap?
Ami
-----Original Message----- From: John Segers [SMTP:jsegers@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 6:27 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: H.320 gateways People, In yesterday's conference call, the subject of H.320 GWs wasraised briefly. In my opinion, the connection model and protocol should be able to deal with H.320. I would like to continue discussion on it on the mailing list.
H.320 allows a user to have a session with both audio and video ona single 64 kbit/s channel such as an ISDN B-channel. The same channel carries some signalling information (frame alignment, bitrate allocation). To a MG supporting H.320, this means that on a single endpoint, three streams can come in, carrying different types of media. The current connection model of megaco/H.gcp does not cater to this. I see two possible solutions:
The first is to allow multiple media in one context and todescribe for terminations the logical streams they carry. In a picture:
+----------+ | | | +--------- signalling (FAS, BAS) | | B-channel ==========+ +--------- audio (16 kbit/s) | | | +--------- video (46.4 kbit/s) | | +----------+ The second solution is to have separate terminations for thedifferent streams. They would all "connect to" the same physical endpoint. In order to properly identify the terminations, it is necessary to have logical names for them. The physical endpoint they connect may have the hierarchical name proposed in the megaco document.
Another example of a H.320 session is the case of two B-channelsbeing used for an audiovisual call. The following frame structure is then possible.
+--------------------------++-----------------------+ | Channel 1 || Channel 2 | +-----+--+--+--+--+--+--+--++--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |Bit 1|B2|B3|B4|B5|B6|B7|B8||B1|B2|B3|B4|B5|B6|B7|B8| +-----+--+--+--+--+--+--+--++--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 1 | a1 |a2|a3|a4|a5|a6|v1|F ||v2|v3|v4|v5|v6|v7|v8|F | 2 | a7 |a8|a9|a |a |a |v9|F ||v |v |v |v |v |v |v |F | 3 | a |a |a |a |a |a |v |F ||v |v |v |v |v |v |v |F | 4 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 5 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 6 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 7 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | 8 | a | | | | |a |v |F ||v | |v |F | +---------------------------------------------------+ 9 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 10 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 11 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 12 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 13 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 14 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 15 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | 16 | a | | | | |a |v |B ||v | |v |B | +---------------------------------------------------+ 17 | a | | | | |a |v |v ||v | |v |v | . . . 80 | a | | | | |a |v |v ||v | |v |v | +---------------------------------------------------+ (a=audio, v=video, F=FAS, B=BAS). We see that the video stream is split up over two channels. Inorder to cater to this, it seems we have to allow terminations to receive media from and send it to multiple physical endpoints. The two approaches outlined above can both be extended to allow this. Both extensions will lead to the introduction of logical names for terminations. In the first approach there will be one termination "containing" two B-channels on one side and three logical streams on the other. In the second approach there will be three terminations, the one for the video stream referencing both B-channels, the ones for signalling and audio referencing only channel 1.
The second approach allows us to keep separate contexts fordifferent media types. It is then easy to delete, for instance, the video part of a session (session used loosely to desribe the contexts for the audio and video).
The first approach groups the streams coming from/going to oneuser, making it possible to remove a user from a context more easily.
Personally, I can't decide which approach I would prefer. How doothers feel about these ideas?
Regards, John Segers -- John Segers email:jsegers@lucent.com Lucent Technologies Room HE 344 Dept. Forward Looking Work phone: +31 35 687 4724 P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA Huizen fax: +31 35 687 5954
participants (2)
-
Mike Buckley -
Tom-PT Taylor