Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses Internet2 RTC Advisory Group

1
Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2
Campuses- Internet2 RTC Advisory Group

• Denis Baron
• Tyler Johnson
• Walt Magnussen
• April 25, 2006

2
Disclaimer

• RTC-AG work is not complete. This presentation
  represents discussions and directions within the
  group, but does not yet represent official RTC-AG
  or Internet2 positions.
• Draft recommendations have been submitted to the
  Application Strategy Counsel and conclusions will
  be submitted after member feedback from this
  meeting.
• Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited,
  your mileage may vary, not available in all
  states.

3
Membership

• Dennis Baron, MIT
• Markus Buchhorn, ANU
• Ben Chinowsky (Scribe), Internet2
• Tammy Closs, Duke University  
• Phillipe Galvez, CalTech
• Jill Gemmill, University of Alabama at Birmingham
  
• Gwen Jacobs, Montana State University
• Tyler Johnson (Chair), University of North
  Carolina

• Ivan Judson, Argonne National Laboratory
• Deke Kassabian, Upenn
• Stephen Kingham, AARNet
• Walt Magnussen, Texas AM
• Steve Smith, University of Alaska
• Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2
• Mary Trauner, Georgia Tech
• Jonathan Tyman (Flywheel), Internet2
• Egon Verharen, SurfNet
• Roger Will, Ford Motor Company
• Garret Yoshimi, University of Hawaii

4
Charter - Deliverables

• A technology/application architecture with a
  roadmap of what is available today and what is
  visible on the horizon, including identification
  of key standards that are necessary for
  interoperability of real time communications
  applications
• Recommendations for production, Internet2-wide
  and beyond, implementations of RTC tools and
  applications that integrate with work on
  middleware and include end-to-end diagnostics and
  support mechanisms
• A guide to RTC applications that will help
  members understand which of the applications or
  approaches may best fit their needs and
  information on how to best deploy them for
  different purposes in our community
• A recommendation on how best to align the
  production service, research and development
  activities now going on within Internet2. The
  result should be an alignment of working groups
  and a set of prioritized activities

5
Reference Architecture Components
ID Management Directory Services
H.350
Authentication
Shared Secret ? SAML
Finding People Services
Data Collaboration Tools
Multipoint Conferencing
H.350 Directories ? Presence ? ?
H.239 ? ?
H.323 ? SIP
Presence Location Services
DoS Prevention
Accounting
0 ? Simple?
?
Tie in to IDM
Firewall / NAT Traversal
Baseline Functionality
SPAM Prevention
? ? ?
Audio / Video / IM / Data
? ? Inter-ream authentication
Encryption Privacy
Physical Networks
H.323 ? SIP
Wired Wireless
6
Deployment Goals

• Massive deployment
• Part of campus expectations?
• Implements reference architecture
• Standardized external campus interfaces
• To talk to any campus, use these well documented
  interfaces
• Standardized internal components
• Allow flexible internal deployment, but expect
  that campuses will be similar and will draw from
  the same tool sets and best practices

7
RTC Priorities Operational

• Sharing of deployment experiences related to the
  reference architecture
• Promoting deployment of reference architectures
• Enabling very large scale RTC network
  availability
• Facilitating campus interoperability
• Creating a market for Corporate Member Work
  Products
• Publishing and Outreach

8
RTC Priorities Research and Development

• Security and Identity Management
• Location Services
• Disaster Recover
• Next Generation Protocols
• Mobility

9
Deprecated Activities

• Numeric Addressing
• This is controversial with competing needs. Wait
  and see.
• Sharing of Trunks and Gateways for Toll Bypass
• Simply an operational issue. Not strategic
• DO support this for disaster recovery

10
Background Problems

• Overlapping Activities and Mixed Messages to the
  Membership
• Addressing
• 911 and Presence
• Directory Services
• Varying degrees of WG activity from dormant to
  hyper
• Confusion of Message to Corporate Members
• RTC emerging as a critical application

11
Creation of a Standing RTC Steering Committeea
la MACE

• Manage the creation, development and closure of
  RTC working groups.
• Support the harmonization of technical activities
  across the various RTC working groups to promote
  consistency of direction and re-use of work
  products.
• Facilitate communication among the various RTC
  working groups to ensure that diverse
  perspectives are well understood within the more
  narrow activities of specific RTC working groups.
• Advise Internet2 with regard to resource
  allocation for RTC-related activities and
  projects.
• Maintain an overarching architectural vision for
  RTC that is inclusive of the breadth of
  RTC-related activities, addresses near term needs
  of the membership, and promotes an aggressive and
  forward looking vision of the RTC application
  space.
• Promote Internet2 RTC activities within the
  membership and to the public.
• Act as a focal point for communications with
  Corporate Members, vendors and the development
  community in order to maintain a consistent
  message about development direction.

12
Working Group Alignment Recommendations

• Presence and Instant Communications (PIC)
• Keep
• Voice Over IP Working Group (VoIP-WG)
• Change to RTP-VoIP-SIG
• RTC Middleware Working Group
• New working group
• Data Collaboration Working Group
• New working group
• SIP.edu
• Migrate into established new structure and expand
• I2 Instant Messaging (I2IM)
• Close. Move to PIC
• Video Middleware (VidMid-VC)
• Close. Move to RTC-Middleware
• ITEC
• Under discussion
• Commons (not a working group)
• Continue and expand to complement RTC

13
Working Group Structure
Communications - Internet2 - Membership -
Developers
RTC-SC
Common Reference Architecture
RTC- DataCollab
RTC- Middleware
RTC- PIC
RTC- VoIP-SIG
14
RTC-DataCollab

• Problems
• Few Standards Exist
• Campus Investment in Data Collaboration Tools is
  Very High
• Content Lock
• New WG RTC-DataCollab
• Seed / matching funding from Internet2
• Matching funding from participants (skin)
• Call for participation to CIO and technologists
  key to potential success and buy in
• Caution History of entropic efforts. Proceed
  with commitment, else wait.

15
Discussion

• How best to expand SIP.edu to
• Massive deployment?
• Media rich environment, not VoIP?
• Include more components of the reference
  architecture?

16
Discussion

• What should be the scope and mission for
  RTC-DataCollab?

17
(No Transcript)