24 September 2003 Internet2, Connectivity, and Advanced Interpersonal Communications Ben Teitelbaum Dennis Baron Jeremy George

24 September 2003

Internet2, Connectivity, and Advanced Interpersonal Communications

Ben Teitelbaum <[email protected]>

Dennis Baron <[email protected]>

Jeremy George <[email protected]>

www.internet2.edu“Inernet2, Connectivity, and Advanced Interpersonal Communications”—Fall VON 2003—Boston, MA

“Internet Who?”

Elevator Explanation• Internet2's mission is to develop and deploy advanced network

applications and technologies, accelerating the creation of tomorrow’s Internet

Who we really are• Membership organization of 200+ US research universities• Parent 501.3c (UCAID) has board of university presidents• Project supported by numerous partnerships (government, industry,

international)

Goals• Enable new generation of applications• Re-create leading edge R&E network capability• Transfer capability to global production internet


Internet2 Focus Areas

Advanced Network Infrastructure• 10 GB Abilene backbone • Advanced regional networks • 100 MB

to the desktop • National fiber-optic facility

Middleware• Directories • Authentication • Authorization • Call routing

Engineering• Multicast • IPv6 • Measurement • Gigabit+ file transfer

Advanced Applications• Tele-immersion • Remote instrumentation • Distributed computation

• Virtual laboratories • Distributed learning • Digital video • VoIP • Integrated Communications


Outline

Better Voice Through IP

A Look Back Over Our Shoulders

Connectivity is Key

What Internet2 Brings to the Table

Some Guiding Principles

New Internet2 Voice Activities


The Opportunity

Voice is the primary means of real-time human communication

Has been and will be a “killer app” for a long time• Per-capita, daily US land-line use: 45 minutes• Per-capita, daily US wireless use: 16 minutes• Overall, per-capita minutes continue to grow

Not high bandwidth, but very high value per bit

Let’s make it better!


Better Voice Through IP

VoIP opens many opportunities

Potential dimensions of improvement• Fidelity• Privacy• Addressing• Mobility• Integration with other media• Survivability • Presence


So What Will the Future Look Like?

Although there are many potentially fruitful directions for voice…… we have no idea what the future holds!

Q: How can we nurture innovative new IP voice applications?

Before answering this question, it’s useful to consider the history of earlier communications technologies…


Early History of the Telephone

For the first 30 years of the telephone, promoters struggled to identify the killer application that would promote its wide adoption by home owners and businesses. At first the telephone was promoted as a replacement for the telegraph, allowing businesses to send messages more easily and without an operator. Telephone promoters in the early years touted the telephone as a new service to broadcast news, concerts, church services, weather reports, etc. Industry journals publicized inventive uses of the telephone such as sales by telephone, consulting with doctors, ordering groceries over the telephone, listening to school lectures and even long distance Christian Science healing! The concept that someone would buy the telephone to chat was simply inconceivable at that time.

Bill St Arnaud’s summary ofC. Fischer’s book America Calling


Other Earlier Communications Technologies

Email• The popularity of email was not foreseen by the ARPANET's

planners. Roberts had not included electronic mail in the original blueprint for the network. In fact, in 1967 he had called the ability to send messages between users “not an important motivation for a network of scientific computers” . . . . Why then was the popularity of email such a surprise? One answer is that it represented a radical shift in the ARPANET's identity and purpose. The rationale for building the network had focused on providing access to computers rather than to people.

J. Abbate, Inventing the Internet

Peer-to-peer file sharing• Again, not foreseen• Internet2 connectivity + directory services (Napster, etc.)


And the Moral Is…

Business and technology leaders…• …have a poor track record of predicting how new communications technologies will be used

• …tend to underestimate social or seemingly “frivolous” uses of new technologies and overestimate the importance of content

Users are highly motivated to communicate with each other, if only they can connect


Connectivity is Key!

Network connectivity• Can connections be established between communicating IP

addresses with high-performance and high-availability?

Application connectivity• Do devices and applications have good network connectivity?• Are there protocols and call routing infrastructure to establish

connections between communing applications?

User connectivity• Can I

reach you?

Address

Presence

Address

Presence

Application Connectivity

Network ConnectivityApp

lica

tion A

pplica

tion

(call and presence routing)

(high-performance, end-to-end IP transit)

Use

r Use

r


What Internet2 Brings to the Table

Eager adopters• ~4 million students• Strong institutional commitments to advance IP communications and promote collaborative apps

Connectivity• Great networking connectivity

–High-bandwidth, low-loss, low-jitter –End-to-end transparency (few NATs)–IPv6 and multicast too!

• We are committed to advancing higher-level connectivity

26% of college students use IM (twice the rate of average Internet users)*

* The Internet Goes to College, Pew Internet and American Life Project report, Sept. 2002.


Internet2 Voice: Guiding Principles

Voice Can Be Advanced• Many ways to make voice better

– fidelity, privacy, addressing, mobility, survivability, presence

• Internet2 VoIP is not about cheap phone calls!

Connectivity First, New Services Later• Innovation occurs at the edge, but requires connectivity• Good network connectivity not sufficient• Also need application-layer connectivity and (ultimately) user-layer connectivity

• We are looking for purple paths in the snow!


Several New Internet2 Activities

SIP.edu• Leader: Dennis Baron <[email protected]>

Voice survivability• Leader: Chris Peabody <[email protected]>

Presence and Integrated Communications WG• Chair: Jeremy George <[email protected]>


Better Voice Through IP: Addressing

Addressing• Users should not be burdened with device addresses, when it’s people they really care about

• Addresses should be mnemonic and empower enterprises to manage the identities of their users–sip:[email protected]

• It’s time to put E.164 phonenumbers behind us!

• A.G. Bell did not say: “+1-617-637-8562, come here. I need you!”


SIP.edu

Goals• Grow SIP connectivity in Internet2• Increase value proposition for end-user SIP adoption• Promote convergence of voice and email identity• Low entry-cost means for campuses to...

–Provide a useful service–Get their feet wet with SIP

Means• Publishing “cookbook” with several alternative “recipes”• Obtaining corporate sponsorship and promotional pricing


SIPProxy

DNSSIP-PBXGateway

PBX

INVITE (sip:[email protected])

INVITE(sip:[email protected])

DNS SRV query sip.udp.bigu.edu

telephoneNumberwhere mail=”bob”

PRI / CASbigu.edu

CampusDirectory

SIP User Agent

Bob's Phone

SIP.edu Architecture (Phase 1)


DNS

INVITE (sip:[email protected])DNS SRV query

sip.udp.bigu.edu

bigu.edu

SIP User Agent

SIP.edu Architecture (Phase 2)

locationDB

If Bob has registered, ring his SIP phone; Else, call his extension through the PBX.

REGISTER(Contact: 207.75.164.131)

INVITE (sip:[email protected])

SIPProxy

SIPRegistrar

Bob's SIP Phone


Better Voice Through IP: Survivability

Survivability• PSTN and Internet each have strengths and weaknesses• Internet allows for gradual degradation of voice quality, rather than

call blocking, which is what you want in an emergency• Combining VoIP and PSTN results in better voice survivability than

either architecture alone

PSTN Internet•Reliable QoS (once connected)

•Reliable hardware

•Impervious to DoS attack

•Network routes around failure

•Packet-level call multiplexing

•Adaptive, loss tolerant codecs

Strengths

•CO is single point of failure

•Local loop single point of failure

•Open to internal attack

•Mileage may vary (no QoS)

Weaknesses


Voice Survivability

Broadsoft/PAETEC/Georgetown Trial • SIP-based voice disaster recovery trial• Emergency phones on GU campus• Redundant Broadworks server nodes• Redundant PAETEC gateways in separate COs

Voice survivability and disaster recovery is increasingly a big deal for Internet2 schools

• Other projects in this area are anticipated


PaeTec

PSTN

Disaster Recovery Architecture

NoX

MAX

Texas A&M

Internet2

MassachusettsGateway

VirginiaGateway

DC SIPServers

Texas SIPServers

Disaster Recovery Phones PSTN Phones

SS7


Better Voice Through IP: Presence

Presence• “Notification of events that facilitate communication” (Henning Schulzrinne)

–“On-line”, “Away”, “Idle”, “On phone”, “Out to lunch”, ...

• Back to the future–Remember: finger, write, who?–Presence restores the sense of community that existed on

timesharing systems

• Forward to the future–New standards for interoperability and scalability–User-controlled policies to provide custom views to watchers–Richer state semantics and automatic triggers


Rich Presence

Automatic notification from many sources…

• Location beacons • Facial recognition systems• Phones• Calendar• …

Not all watchers are human• Software agents may watch

presence and route/initiate calls appropriately (e.g. below)

Watch and initiate a voice conference when everyone is available


Presence as Glue

presence

text --------------------- image ------------------- voice

email

instant messaging

directories

calendaring

video

3G cellular

conferencing

soft/hard phones

voice mail


Automated Location Services

Location Beacons – may be 802.11

irda

bluetooth

Report to a central server

May be published – via a web portal

or pushed to UE


Presence and Integrated Communications

Newly chartered “PIC” working group

Focus• Presence• Automated Location Services• Integrated communications

First-year Deliverables• Rich Presence and Integrated Communications Demonstration (Internet2 Member Meeting, Fall 2003)

• Engineering and management-level tutorials (Spring 2004)


Conclusions

Voice is the primary means of real time human communication

• There are many opportunities to make it better• Important not to bet on any one

Connectivity is key

Internet2 is growing this connectivity and “watching the paths in the snow”


For More Information

Voice Over IP Working Group• http://voip.internet2.edu/

Presence and Integrated Communications WG • http://pic.internet2.edu/

Great SIP tutorial• http://www.iptel.org/sip/

Other sources• J. Abbate, Inventing the Internet, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1999.• C.S. Fischer, America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to

1940, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1992.• A. Odlyzko, Content is Not King, First Monday, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2001.

www.internet2.edu

Documents

24 September 2003 Internet2, Connectivity, and Advanced Interpersonal Communications Ben Teitelbaum Dennis Baron Jeremy George