IETF 63 - Paris VOIPPEER BoF A Broadband Service Provider

1
IETF 63 - ParisVOIPPEER BoFA Broadband
Service Providers Perspectiveon VoIP Peering

• August 5, 2005Presented by Jason Livingood

2
The Context for VoIP Peering

• If it originates on IP and terminates on IP, why
  convert it to something else in the middle?
• Adds cost and complexity (operational network).
• Decreases control over
• User Experience
• Services Quality
• Network / Troubleshooting
• So Keep communications IP-based, end-to-end.
• IP networks are generally private free of
  traditional telecom regulation.
• Helps make possible new, broadband IP-based
  services, not possible via PSTN.
• Many big economic and strategic motivations

3
The Context for ENUM in VoIP Peering

• Without ENUM
• Each switch (CMS) is largely an island unto
  itself.
• Linking many CMSs is difficult to scale.
• Vendor-specific methods to share TN / IP data.
• Legacy / PSTN-centric solutions (inefficient via
  IP).
• ENUM can tell me, for a dialed TN, what IP
  network element (CMS, Proxy, SBC, etc.) to send a
  call to.
• Can help to enable easily scalable
• CMS-to-CMS calling (all PacketCable).
• PacketCable-to-SIP calling.
• Fixed-to-wireless calling.
• MSO-to-MSO calling.
• MSO-to-any IP-based carrier calling.
• BUT, ENUM is just one part of the solution (lest
  we forget SIP).
• Laying the foundation now (1) Working to use
  ENUM as part of a solution to simplify call
  routing peering work is incremental. (2)
  Working on backbone for peering and other uses
  (takes time).

4
Preparing a Backbone for Intra/Inter-Network
Peering
National Backbone Network
Features
Links all the regional networks into a unified network. Consolidates peering and interconnection with other operators. Managed QoS delivery end-to-end with no third-parties involved. Supports centralized management functions.
Benefits
Very flexible and low cost linear and OnDemand video distribution. Backbone transport payments to transit providers reduced. Reduce overall operational costs and complexity by supporting centralization. Increased revenue opportunities by providing high quality, national end-to-end services.

• Over 19,000 route miles of national fiber
• Covers 95 of Homes Passed
• All major peering points
• Transport capability of gt2500 Gbps in 2005
• 40Gbps IP links in 2005
• QoS based voice, video and data over IP

5
Private ENUM VoIP Peering

• Development work underway with CableLabs (more
  later).
• Could prioritize peering priorities based on
  economics (similar to peering analysis used in
  HSI peering) and/or business strategy.
• Comcast and other parties could begin using
  private ENUM to peer without waiting for public
  1.e164.arpa being up and running. (Short-term
  hedge.)
• Communications peering over IP could enable the
  federation of multimedia services not feasible
  over the PSTN due to bandwidth constraints.
• Leverages unique capabilities of broadband
  networks.
• Could include both TN-addressed and URI-addressed
  communications.

6
Public ENUM VoIP Peering

• Bi-Lateral / multi-lateral, private trees will
  only scale so far before operational and
  management challenges present themselves.
• Thus, Public ENUM is a long-term goal.
• What form will this take? (Carrier or User ENUM)
• Without carriers in e164.arpa is the business
  model for User sustainable?
• Will there be a mix of different peering types?
• Private POPs, with committed capacity.
• Public peering points.
• Over the Internet generally, best effort (no
  QoS).
• Bottom line Working towards public ENUM in the
  future (very important), while hedging our bets
  with work on private ENUM in the shorter term.

7
Specific Near-Term VoIP Peering Challenges

• Provisioning into / security for ENUM tree.
• Normalization of different SIP profiles between
  providers.
• Trust at network edge.
• Security / encryption at network edge.
• QoS at network edge / passing QoS between
  parties.
• Lawful intercept.
• Selection of best IP routes advertising routes
  as POPs increases.
• Failover to PSTN routes in the event of IP route
  failure.
• Explore the role of SBCs.
• Some PacketCable-related work on interfaces
  needed.
• Evolves into part of PacketCable 2.0.

8
PacketCable 2.0 Standards Development

• Driven to support
• Backward-Compatible (PacketCable Multimedia PC
  1.X)
• Enhanced Telephony
• Video Telephony
• Cross-Platform (voice/video/data convergence)
  Features
• Cellular Integration
• Presence and Availability
• ENUM / Peering
• Commercial Service Extensions

9
In Summary

• What VoIP Peering Is About for Us
• It is about a lot more than saving money.
• It is more than just voice communications.
• It is about enabling new services not possible on
  the PSTN.
• It is about creating / increasing network
  effects supercharging adoption.
• It is about end-to-end control over
  communications and staying all-IP.
• It is about reducing complexity increasing
  efficiency vs. PSTN-imitation models.
  (Keeping IP in VoIP)
• VoIP Peering is important to companies like
  Comcast.
• Building network and systems infrastructure now.
• Both ENUM and SIP are important to this effort
  basic standards / protocol groundwork is there.
• Some incremental standards work is necessary and
  vital to success.

10
Thank You!

• Questions?
• Jason Livingood
• jason_livingood_at_cable.comcast.com
• 1-215-981-7813