Comments on AT&T proposal
dclowes at OZEMAIL.COM.AU
Thu Aug 20 20:27:38 EDT 1998
At 17:53 20/08/98 +0200, you wrote:
>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"
>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
>- 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
>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
More information about the sg16-avd