[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..

[Uzelac, Adam]

MSOs want to offer a small IP-PBX to the SMB that registers to the
Service Provider (themselves I assume)?  If this is true (any MSO reps
out there?), then it's news to me.  IF it's a valid use-case, then
requirements from it should be captured in 1.1.

-AU

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carr, Steve (NSN - US/Boca Raton) [mailto:steve.carr at nsn.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:59 AM
> To: Uzelac, Adam; Hadriel Kaplan; Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
> 
> In our experience, both are required.
> 
> Medium/large enterprises have their own IP address space, and 
> so a trunking model is appropriate.
> 
> On the other hand, our customers (eg the Cable MSOs) want to 
> address the SMB market where they are both the voice and data 
> provider. On the data side, they do not have the 
> infrastructure to offer static IP addresses, and use the same 
> PPOE/DHCP mechanisms as they use for residential to assign 
> dynamic IP addresses. Now they want offer a small IP-PBX such 
> as the Linksys SPA 9000 to the SMB, and it will need to 
> register with the Service provider to provide the address binding.
> 
> Steve  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> On Behalf Of ext Uzelac, Adam
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:45 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan; Jamie Palmer; Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
> 
> We both can't be right. It's no fun that way!!  ;)  
> Seriously, I think that we need further definition of the 
> interface being defined here.  In my eyes, it's more the 
> SIP-based IP-PBX to the SIP-based SP for PSTN access.  The 
> endpoints on the enterprise's premise will register to the 
> IP-PBX.  The registration across the SIP Interface being 
> defined in the 1.0 is not directly tied to PSTN access.  
> 
> I have no problem with changing the scope of the document.  I 
> am just looking for consistency, or looking to prevent 
> inconsistencies.
> 
> -AU
> 
> PS - would it be worth a live pow-wow on this subject at the 
> next IETF (Dublin)?  It seems like a common set of characters 
> participating in both groups.  Just throwing that out there.  
> I bet that Richard would buy a round or two!  ;)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan at acmepacket.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:18 PM
> > To: Uzelac, Adam; Jamie Palmer; Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
> > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
> > 
> > Hey Adam,
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Uzelac, Adam
> > > >
> > > > 1) Section 11 (Enterprise Identities):  I would like to 
> see this 
> > > > section revised to cover the registration process.
> > >
> > > I disagree.  In my view, the relationship between the
> > Enterprise with
> > > a IP-PBX, and a SIP Service Provider (SSP) is  a "trunking" 
> > relationship.
> > > I view a SIP Registration process as "line" side.  This is
> > consistent
> > > with the text in the introduction of the document: "this document 
> > > defines the protocol support, implementation rules, and features 
> > > required for a predictable interoperable scenario between
> > SIP-enabled
> > > IP PBXs and SIP-enabled Service Providers."
> > 
> > I think you're actually both right. :)  There are providers which 
> > treat their Enterprise customers as "line side", and many 
> that treat 
> > it as "trunk side".  The difference I've seen so far is around the 
> > size of the Enterprises being connected
> > - for medium/large Enterprises, it's a defined trunk; for SMB's the 
> > provider treats them as a line side to some degree, 
> specifically with 
> > a Registration process.  The needs of those two markets are 
> different, 
> > for both provider and enterprise, methinks.
> > 
> > -hadriel
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>