[H.323-SIP/Internet] Re: H323/SIP Interworking - way forward

Orit Levin orit at radvision.com
Thu Mar 2 10:31:33 EST 2000


Hello guys!
I have exactly same point of view on this path.
I would like to be sure that we are talking about the same path.
In my understanding
(1) and (3) are the same combined (GK and SIP Server) entity
(2) is a GK++ being able to talk to SIP Server using SIP only(?)
(4) is a SIP Server++ being able to talk to GK using RAS (?) using Annex
G/H.225.0 (?)
Based on this I would vote for (1) and (3) only (which are the same).

"Now, to thin it some more..."
Considerations in regards to GK Routed/Direct modes and SIP Proxy flavors
...
I vote for
- GK Routed mode only
- SIP Server having a logic of Statefull Proxy, Registrar and Redirect
Server
Regards,
Orit Levin
RADVision Inc.
575 Corporate Drive Suite 420
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Tel: 1 201 529 4300  (230)
Fax: 1 201 529 3516
www.radvision.com
orit at radvision.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones <paul.jones at ties.itu.int>
To: sip-h323 at egroups.com <sip-h323 at egroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 2:44 AM
Subject: [sip-h323] Re: H323/SIP Interworking - way forward


>David,
>
>Dave Walker suggested removing the first 5 scenarios.  I'd agree with that
>recommendation.
>
>Now, to thin it some more...
>
>Would it not be a reasonable thing to state that interworking between H.323
>networks/devices and SIP networks/devices should be performed by either a
GK
>or proxy that contains the interworking functions.  If folks agree with
>that, then we could just have these scenarios:
>
>HT-----GK/IWF---------------------------ST
>HT-----GK/IWF--------------------SR-----ST
>HT-----------------------------SR/IWF---ST
>HT-----GK----------------------SR/IWF---ST
>
>Of course, the first two and the last two above are virtually identical.
If
>the IWF is designed appropriately, there should be no need to make a
special
>case for #2 and #4 above.
>
>The reason I would propose this is that it makes sense to collocate the
>interworking function within such a device.  Additionally, it removes
burden
>(both new signaling procedures and complexity) from the endpoints, which I
>think should be a goal.
>
>Paul
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wang, Dave" <dwang at nuera.com>
>To: <sip-h323 at egroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 9:53 AM
>Subject: [sip-h323] Re: H323/SIP Interworking - way forward
>
>
>> I 2nd Christian's 4 things and their ordering.
>>
>> We have started working on the 1st 3 things in IMTC aHIT and ETSI TIPHON,
>> but would definitely use more input.
>>
>> Therefore, could we start having some suggestion and discussion here on
>the
>> 1st thing : "Architecture and Call Scenarios" ?
>>
>> There was a very short discussion in this thread about "combination" in
>> January started by Joon Maeng, and Kundan Singh. Here is a set of
>> combinations that I've expanded from that discussion. I don't mean to
make
>> the scenarios more comprehensive and complicated. I'm just trying to show
>> the various combinations and ask whether we can explicity decided to
>ignore
>> some of them :
>>
>> HT-------(H.323)----------------------------------HT
>>
>> ST------------------------------------(SIP)-------ST
>>
>> HT---GK--(H.323)----------------------------------HT
>>
>> ST------------------------------------(SIP)--SR---ST
>>
>> HT-------(H.323)--IWF-----------------(SIP)-------HT
>>
>> HT-------(H.323)--IWF-----------------(SIP)-------ST
>>
>> HT---GK--(H.323)--IWF-----------------(SIP)-------ST
>>
>> HT---GK--(H.323)--IWF-----------------(SIP)--SR---ST
>>
>> HT-------(H.323)--IWF-----------------(SIP)--SR---ST
>>
>> HT-------(H.323)--IWF---(SIP)---IWF--(H.323)------HT
>>
>> ST--------(SIP)---IWF--(H.323)--IWF---(SIP)-------ST
>>
>> HT == H.323 Terminal
>> ST == SIP Terminal
>> GK == H.323 Gate Keeper
>> SR == SIP Server
>> IWF == SIP/H.323 Inter-working Function
>>
>> Its has already been pointed out that we should also include Clearing
>House
>> in the scenarios, however, may be we should have some more discussion and
>> possibly some thinning down before thickening it up yet.
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Christian Groves [mailto:Christian.Groves at ericsson.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 2:43 AM
>> > To: SG16; sip-h323
>> > Subject: [sip-h323] H323/SIP Interworking - way forward
>> >
>> >
>> > G'Day all,
>> >
>> > The [H.323-SIP/Internet] thread has lead to some interesting
>> > discussion.
>> > Being personally involved in the H248 "success" and having actually
>> > having had to fight through the process of having to work between SG16
>> > and IETF I think there's a few steps that need to be taken
>> > before we go
>> > into mapping information elements.
>> >
>> > I believe the first thing we need to do is define what
>> > architecture and
>> > call scenarios we are working with. H323 has several architectural
>> > elements, SIP is not so strong on architecture so we need to show what
>> > elements are talking to each other. Only then we can define what
>> > interfaces need to be interworked. In H248 this was relatively easy as
>> > the interface was between an MGC and MG. The H323-SIP
>> > interworking would
>> > be another degree of difficulty as there are potentially several
>> > interfaces. This architecture work would not slow down the work but
>> > would lead to a structured way of working were people agree
>> > on a problem
>> > space. One of the issues with H248 was that the problem space was not
>> > agree on and we went back and forth trying to figure out
>> > where we were.
>> >
>> > As I mentioned at the SG16 I invite people to make contributions on
>> > this. Anything more detailed at this stage I believe is counter
>> > productive. Even Orit's first proposal I think is too detailed at this
>> > stage. Look at the early H248 work where we had many detailed
>> > protocols.
>> > There was an inordinate amount of work spent (and many late nights)
>> > trying to get from details to architecture. Then we had to go
>> > back again
>> > and define the protocol.
>> >
>> > The 2nd thing to do is to define the set of capabilities we intend to
>> > interwork. This needs to be a clear statement of scope. Interworking
>> > basic audio with no conferencing and services is
>> > significantly different
>> > than interworking full audio, video and data conferencing. In H248 the
>> > scope was so large that people were working on completely different
>> > things without appreciating the other people's requirements.
>> >
>> > Thirdly, we must choose our base. What H323version will be interwork
>> > with what SIP flavour and functionalities? Of course in today's world
>> > there needs to be flexibility to address new functionality but we
>> > shouldn't add a new work item every time of version 0 of an internet
>> > draft from Joe Bloggs comes out.
>> >
>> > Fourthly, I believe that once the above is done, then we have a very
>> > good idea of what functional interworking work needs to be
>> > done. Once we
>> > have an idea of the work we can also figure out where the
>> > responsibilities would lie.
>> >
>> > Once we know the work and who is responsible for the work then we MUST
>> > make sure this is agreed upon and documented in both the ITU
>> > and IETF by
>> > the people who can make decisions. Too many things were hidden in the
>> > H248 work and people that could make decisions were not at the
>> > appropriate meetings.
>> >
>> > Finally we can then produce the detailed documents in a way that
>> > everyone understands.
>> >
>> > I do think that at the end of the day H.248 was a success and that the
>> > co-operation between the IETF and ITU was made to work. This
>> > was because
>> > of the large amount of work and sacrifices made by a few
>> > individuals and
>> > companies who wanted to make this happen. Many of the individuals
>> > working on H248 will probably contribute on H323/SIP interworking so
>> > lets learn from the mistakes and have another go at making H323-SIP
>> > interworking work without having to kill ourselves to achieve
>> > the goal.
>> >
>> > Cheers, Christian
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ----------
>> > To Post a message, send it to:   sip-h323 at eGroups.com
>> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
>> > sip-h323-unsubscribe at eGroups.com
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ----------
>> > Shabang!com is the place to get your FREE eStore, Absolutely FREE
>> > Forever. If you have any desires to sell your products or services
>> > online, or you want to expand your customer base for FREE, Come check
>> > out Shabang!com FREE eStores!
>> > http://click.egroups.com/1/1299/2/_/302437/_/951907402/
>> >
>> > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
>> > -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=sip-h323&m=1
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To Post a message, send it to:   sip-h323 at eGroups.com
>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: sip-h323-unsubscribe at eGroups.com
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates
>> as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
>> Apply NOW!
>> http://click.egroups.com/1/969/2/_/302437/_/951922564/
>>
>> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
>> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/sip-h323/?m=1
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To Post a message, send it to:   sip-h323 at eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: sip-h323-unsubscribe at eGroups.com
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/2130/2/_/302437/_/951983045/
>
>-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
>-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=sip-h323&m=1
>
>



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list