Transcript VoIP - Meeting

VoIP Meeting
Architecture I
05/04/2006
Erik Dobbelsteijn,Jan Ruzicka
Roll Call




Fabio Vena (SWITCH)
Jan Ruzicka (CESNET)
Erik Dobbelsteijn (SURFNET)
Joao Pereira (FCCN)
Meeting Objectives



The meeting is meant to inform everyone
about their VoIP deployments. We are not
aiming at defining an 'ideal architecture'. This
will not be doable anyway, because every
NRN is in a different stage or situation.
IpTel cookbook is good starting point for
campus implementation NREN is in different
situation
What Is the role of NREN?
SURFnet

SURFnet has an overview of possible scenarios to act
as a starting base when discussing architectures.
(attachment)





SURFnet end-user service:
http://www.optibel.nl
SURFnet SIP demoserver:
http://sip.showcase.surfnet.nl
SURFnet H.323 service:
http://groepscommunicatie.surfnet.nl/info/videoconferencen
/home.jsp
SURFgroepen service (including MS LCS SIP server):
http://www.surfgroepen.nl/
It is hard to integrate all different services into one
'ideal' overall VoIP/VC architecture.
CESNET

Centralized H.323 VoIP network




http://www.ces.net/project/iptelephony/infrastructure.html - rather old version of map
PBXs connected to the national GK
IP world reached from PBX by special prefix or LCR
Trunk GW to carrier stopped because of billing and political reasons. GW moved to one
of the institution.



SIP introduced into architecture, calling in is quite easy but calling out from
institution via SIP is not




tested one translating gateway (cisco), problems in deciding the right protocol on GW
without translation
Institutions should have their own proxies


Used model CESNET pays to the operator and charges the institution
Hungarnet model: operator charges the institution directly
How to encourage to build Sip proxy with limited manpower on instituitions
CESNET will provide sip proxy service for some of them at least for some time
Goal - Decentralization of the network
Role of NREN ? - Shared resources MCU, Authorized peering (Authorized call and
limited open call-in), teach the institution,…
SWITCH, …









Presented centralized architecture - First draft
Now moving to decentralization with some centralized services as NAT
traversal, peering with operator
Providing an end-user service
Preparing push to run SIP on institutions
Popularity of SIP vs. lack of more good (free) clients.
Email- number mapping is more problematic in centralized approach
Student accounts – difference between telephone and user. User
should have more services than just voip
Institutional acounts vs voip provider accounts – additional services
specific to organization or educational community. Clients could use
more lines, or at least forwarding.
Same situation in email services - PT,NL,CZ – students use non
institutional email.
Issues that NRN's deal with











open up VoIP networks? Risks: SPIT and security. Advantages:
everyone can call everyone
Billing
regulatory obligations (lawful intercept, number portability)
which role to play: end user/wholesale roles?
provide end-users with just another SIP account?
ENUM?
authentication of users and authorisation of calls.
institutions have their own span of control: do not interfere
different islands: SIP, H.323
new features (IM/Presence versus regular phones)
students will use the easiest service (skype or hotmail!), not necessarily
NRN or institutional service