[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect/1.1 v03 onlist - section 7 supportfor registration
Elwell, John
john.elwell at siemens.com
Thu Feb 5 15:53:14 EST 2009
Richard,
________________________________
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Richard Shockey
Sent: 05 February 2009 20:27
To: 'David Hancock'; 'Jamie Palmer'; 'Theo Zourzouvillys';
'Chris Gatch'
Cc: 'SIPForum-TechWG'
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect/1.1 v03 onlist -
section 7 supportfor registration
Well remember what is behind most of this. What is obviously
unstated is that most of the SIPconnect applications are going into
relatively smaller SMB markets at this time and they are voice centric.
I certainly got a ear full of that at the IT EXPO show in Miami this
week. Registration makes sense in that business environment plus as
Chris and David point out its what is out there now and it works.
That said, it is equally obvious that SIPconnect cannot be
targeted specifically to the SMB market or to the voice centric market
to the exclusion of larger enterprises and UC applications in the future
and at some number of seats Registration does _not_ make sense and
Static is the more logical approach. This is Alan's point and there are
PBX vendors out there who are looking to support thousands and tens of
thousands of CUA's within a single administrative domain.
Am I wrong ?
We may need to look at a standardized methodology of
provisioning those large enterprise CUA in the future. DRINKS anyone ???
Chris is right the administrative over head of manual provisioning of
domain CUA's is burdensome for smaller service providers but I suspect
there are some SSP's that would like to have a contract for 400,000 plus
SIP CUA's such as you can find at IBM for instance.
What I can assure you is the SIPforum is not going to create a
artificial number that says if you have X number of CUA's do this and if
it is greater than X do that. That would be madness.
[JRE] But I think a solution that says if you don't support
dynamic IP addresses you don't need to support registration mode would
be acceptable. I think SIP-PBXs aimed specifically at the large end of
the market typically expect to use static IP addresses.
John
SIPconnect is for everyone, for any business of any size. We
are building a foundation for the future here. I'm hoping we can find
rough consensus that can accommodate both perfectly legitimate
positions.
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of David Hancock
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Jamie Palmer; Theo Zourzouvillys; Chris Gatch
Cc: SIPForum-TechWG
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect/1.1 v03 onlist -
section 7 support for registration
I agree with your final paragraph, Jamie. Our cable operators
would like SIPconnect to mandate support of the registration mode
because that is what they'll be massively deploying in their networks.
There may be a handful of PBXs deployed in static mode, but so few that
the value-add to our operators in standardizing that mode is very low.
With respect to how this is specified in SIPconnect, I prefer
your option-1 - both modes MUST be supported. I realize this places a
redundant requirement on those SIP-PBXs that want to target only the
static-mode market. But in my opinion this negative is outweighed by the
positive to our operators in mandating support of registration mode -
the knowledge that a SIPconnect-compliant SIP-PBX is deployable in their
networks.
Thanks
David
________________________________
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Palmer
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:06 PM
To: Theo Zourzouvillys; Chris Gatch
Cc: SIPForum-TechWG
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect/1.1 v03 onlist -
section 7 support for registration
Hmmm....curious...
1. How many SIP-PBX's on the market today support Mutual
TLS?
2. How easy would it be to generate a CERT and get the CERT
installed every time you signup a customer vs. just sending them a
username and password?
While MTLS would be much more secure and technically probably
better - I do not think it's practically feasible for a SIPConnect 1.1
specification or deployments, at least in 2009.
I can only see two ways out of this "registration vs. static"
mode issue...
1. We say static mode and registration mode are both a MUST
for SP-SSE and SIP-PBX.
or
2. We provide an optional set of requirements based on
mode of operation, but we are specific as to what is optional and what
isn't - something like:
"A SIPConnect compliant SIP-PBX or SP-SSE MUST specify
if it supports "static mode" or "registration mode" or both modes of
operation. If it supports supports static mode, then it MUST comply
with sections x, y and z. If it supports "registration mode", then it
MUST comply with sections a, b, and c." This has the side affect that
you always have to qualify SIPConnect compliance with "SIPConnect in
registration mode" or "SIPConnect in static mode".
With that said, I would hope that the vendors would realize the
market value in offering the "registration mode"...and that becomes the
accepted norm. I realize the "static mode" is better if you are really
offering a peering service. But for all intents an purposes, the low
hanging fruit in the short term with SIPConnect is probably the SMB
market. I may be going out on a limb - but I think that's what most
service providers that have deployed SIPConnect 1.0 really want
SIPConnect 1.1 to address... Seems like that's where Chris is coming
from (correct me if I'm wrong Chris). Would be interested in hearing
from other service providers on this topic...
Regards,
JBP
On 05/02/09 1:35 PM, "Theo Zourzouvillys"
<theo at crazygreek.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Chris Gatch
<Chris.Gatch at cbeyond.net> wrote:
> Without registration, we would be required to work with each
and every small
> business customer to 1) make sure they had a reachable address
for their
> PBX, and 2) get the IP address or URL that we would provision
into the
> contact fields of their account.
the mutual TLS solution suggested by me in the other thread
provides a
mechanism for solving both of these problems without requiring
the
SIP-PBX to support REGISTER - which keeps the vendors who don't
want
to support REGISTER happy, while keeping SPs happy as they can
support
dynamic IPs and will traverse NAT [1]; do you see any problem
with it?
~ Theo
1 - at least as well as REGISTER does :)
_______________________________________________
techwg mailing list
Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at:
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20090205/3e5c6c28/attachment-0001.html
More information about the techwg
mailing list