Comments on AT&T proposal

[Douglas Clowes]

At 17:53 20/08/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>Some time ago, we had some brainstorming on roaming with H.323. One of the

I don't participate in conference calls, relying on what I see on this
list. I probably miss a bit, but 2Am is inconvenient.

I haven't seen anything to define the Back-End Services (BES) in Annex G,
but I would have thought that AAA, including roaming and settlement, would
have been among the services offered.

>simplest ways to do it was that the roaming terminal would  send the ARQ,
>...
>to the visited network GK (discovered my broadcast/multicast). This GK would

If you are visiting another IP network, are you asking the GK for more than
bandwidth and address resolution (absent BES-based AR).

>recognize from the calling party alias that the terminal si from an external
>administation having an agreement with the visited administration.
>It would then forward the xRQs to the home gatekeeper of the terminal and
>get the xCFs in reply.

This proposition requires the calling party alias to identify the "home"
administration, and the gatekeeper to be able to resolve the "home"
gatekeeper.

>This has many benefits :
>- The home GK knows where is the roaming teminal and can forward calls.
>- Any policy implemented at the home gatekeeper (restricted phone usage, etc
>...) is still enforced in any visited domain

So, bandwidth restrictions in the home zone would be enforced in a visited
zone?

>- It is simple

I think we should be looking at Back-End Services, at least so we know what
to expect of them, and don't make GK-GK break later, or make GK-BES
difficult/impossible.

>So roaming might be a good reason to forward xRQs ...  just my FF.02.
>
>                                Best regards,
>
>                                Olivier HERSENT
>
>--
>France Telecom CNET
>IP Telephony Technical Proj. Manager - TULIP


Regards,

Douglas