Comments on AT&T proposal
HERSENT Olivier CNET/DSE/CAE
olivier.hersent at CNET.FRANCETELECOM.FR
Fri Aug 21 05:54:23 EDT 1998
The problem is the the visited GK might (and probably) control firewalls and
other QoS and security devices. Therefore it needs to know what my terminal
is doing, and may disagree with the replies of my home GK.
Also for security reasons my home GK may be restricted to receiving xRQs
from the local zone and from specific GKs, and may reject xRQs sent from the
However, I agree with you that if there are no security or QoS issues, the
GK is just a super directory that also controls access to gateways and in
this case the terminal could contact his home GK directly.
> De : Andrew Draper WVdevmt-WS[SMTP:adraper at DEV.MADGE.COM]
> Répondre à : Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group
> Date : Friday, August 21, 1998 11:26 AM
> A : ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Objet : Re: Comments on AT&T proposal
> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:53:41 +0200 Olivier HERSENT wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > Some time ago, we had some brainstorming on roaming with H.323. One of
> > simplest ways to do it was that the roaming terminal would send the
> > ...
> > to the visited network GK (discovered my broadcast/multicast). This GK
> > would recognize from the calling party alias that the terminal si from
> > external administation having an agreement with the visited
> > It would then forward the xRQs to the home gatekeeper of the terminal
> > get the xCFs in reply.
> > 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
> > - It is simple
> > So roaming might be a good reason to forward xRQs ... just my FF.02.
> I agree that if I am a roaming user then I must be registered with my home
> gatekeeper. In addition to the reasons you give, my home gatekeeper is
> the only
> element in the system which is authorised (by my company) to spend money
> on my
> behalf when connecting to the PSTN via gateways.
> However, I am not sure what is gained by my registering with the
> gatekeeper on
> the visited network. Surely an easier solution is for me to register
> with my home gatekeeper directly whether I am at home or roaming?
> In fact it may make it simpler, since I no longer need to multicast in
> order to
> find the foreign gatekeeper, but can be configured with the address of my
> gatekeeper before leaving home (or can look it up from my AliasAddress in
> same way as I would if placing a call to it).
> In addition to simplifying the model, this reduces the dependency on
> gatekeepers implementing the protocol correctly.
> Andrew Draper - Principal Development Engineer - WAVE Software
> Madge Networks, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks.
> mailto:adraper at dev.madge.com phone:+44 1753 661329
> pgp fingerprint D6 ED 72 4F 96 BB CA 2D 68 74 4C E0 CB B9 0B 3F
More information about the sg16-avd