Session Peering Use Cases for Federations

David Schwartz – Kayote NetworksEli Katz - XConnectJeremy Barkan - Digitalshtick

draft-schwartz-speermint-use-cases-federations-00.txt

IETF 67 – San Diego, November 2006

• Different types of peering architectures found in real world

• Much discussion about kinds of peering

• Need for a catalog of real use cases

• Need a model [ pattern ] to talk about these use cases

• Use cases express different kinds of business relationships and drives in the VoIP peering space

Use Cases and Patterns for VoIP Peering

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

L (Location) – Location of termination Voice Service Provider

I (Interoperability) – Signaling/media compatibility with T-VSP

S (Security) – Security of transport, authenticity of VSPs

T (Trust) – Privacy, Identity, Auth management, SPIT

R (Routing) – Priority based traffic management

C (Cost) – Cost of call

six functions or services associated with call setup across peering networks:

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

•Content – Declaration of policy requirements

•Negotiation – Method for peers to reach a policy instance that meets the policy requirements of both peers

•Enforcement – application of policy requirements at run time, such as in the call set up

Each peering function has a policy framework associated with it consisting of :

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Location Function Policy Content Examples

• Query mechanism/format of data (NAPTR, SIP 3XX)

• Location of authoritative information (Remote, Local)

• Type of data returned (Domain, IP)

• Resolution of domain (static, DNS SRV)

• Whose location returned (T-VSP, Intermediary)

• O-VSP has access to (All data, Selected peers)

• Data retrieval (Unlimited, Rate limited)

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Security Function Policy Content Examples

•Type (IPSec, TLS)

•Symmetric (IPSec IKE, mutual TLS)

•Asymmetric (TLS + Digest)

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Logical network entity providing one or more

of the six peering functions described above.

May be co-located at one of the peered VSPs, or it may be a separate,

independent entity.

Peering Service Provider

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Direct – Peering Service Provider

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Complexity associated with Direct model

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Dealing with complexity

Limit functionalityFarm out to 3rd

party

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Indirect – Peering Service Provider

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

Putting it all together

IETF 67 – SPEERMINT WG

• factoring out location function

• Handling non location functions for some relationships

• Using 3rd party for these non location functions in others

Conclusions:

• Different relationships require different peering models

• Direct peering does not scale very well

• There is need for more than just location function

• One solution is to “farm out” all functionality to 3rd party

• Another solution involves

Questions?