VoIP Working Group
Spring 2002 Internet2 Member Meeting
6 May 2002
Intros and Welcome
Following brief introductions by the two Working Group chairs: Mike Enyeart and Walt
Magnussen, Mike welcomed everyone to the 3rd spring meeting of Internet2 VoIP
Working Group and invited everyone to participate in the discussions and get some
action items going.
Considerations for VoIP Working Group
Ted Hanss, Internet2 Director for Applications Development, was invited to give a brief
statement: The VoIP Working Group falls under the auspices of the Internet2
Applications Group. Some issues for this group to consider include: To what extent
should we focus on the toll bypass testbed. Is there interest throughout our community in
soft phones? What services and operational activities should be offered under the
Internet2 Commons (voice conferencing, e.g.)? These could be offered as part of the
Commons Phase 2 rollout. The VoIP WG can potentially address four key areas:
1. Identify technical solutions that are already out there.
2. Recommend solutions based on assessed criteria (interoperability, price, features, etc.).
3. Provide customized services if there’s nothing out there to meet our needs.
4. Initiate R&D activities.
Ask yourselves, how do the VoIP WG recommendations that will be made today fit into
the structure above?
Mike Enyeart gave a presentation on the current status of the VoIP deployment at Indiana
University. There are currently 12 zones defined. Australia Academic Research Network
(AARNet) is currently the largest site. The testbed uses local and remote gatekeepers.
The remote are peering with other networks (including Rio de Janiero and the Czech
Republic). The goal of the testbed is to support researchers using toll bypass between
institutions. How far can we go with toll bypass? Can users dial out of switches? (E.g.
international call goes into Texas and then goes out from Texas.) We want to offer this
service without becoming long-distance service providers.
VoIP prefixes should adhere to E 164 dialing plan to support legacy equipment.
However, the dialing plan should not be limited by that and needs to be as broad as
possible. E.g. Texas A&M University (TAMU) has 40,000 free lines available for VoIP
use. Initial focus has been on Cisco connected sites (because of existing technology
base). There has been some interest expressed in including other technologies, and we’re
looking for other non-Cisco sites to work with us. Voice communities are often separate
from research communities on campus. A challenge for us is to help bring the two
together. From the voice side, our VoIP installation looks just like another trunk group.
Internet2 VoIP Working Group May 6, 2002 Meeting Summary Page 1
Mike concluded his presentation with a call for additional participation in the testbed.
What is required to get more people connected to the testbed?
Some locations have all the hardware, but need assistance in getting all pieces
VoIP WG has grad student assistance through the end of the summer. Let’s utilize this
Interest expressed in participating in England—first step is to identify who to peer with.
Two separate deployments. Gatekeepers need to peer with each other. Also need to be
redundant and shadow each other. Goal was to have gatekeepers peer with each other
directly, instead we use hierarchical scheme. How well will this scale? Probably 100-150
on each continent. VidMid currently has over 100 sites, with plans to move over to new
How to participate using video as well.
Do sites have to maintain two gatekeepers? One for voice and one for video? Walt
wants to work more closely with ViDe working group to resolve some of these issues.
It can be a challenge to make a business case for VoIP. Symmetry with video could help
make that case.
Need to minimize work flow process end of this so engineers can get back to tinkering
and spend less time educating campus audience.
Cisco Discount Package Cisco IP Telephony program discount package – 200 hard
phones plus 200 softphones for $95,000. Must be purchased as package. Breaks down to
approx. $360 per phone. (PBX costs about $1,000 per phone) 75 phone package
$36,000. Include redundant call manager $44, 000 . See www.internet2.edu/voip for
Issues: 911 services (label line as “soft” or “mobile”, reserve bandwidth for these calls?),
stationary phones, We want to provide QoS but not develop it.
Fear of “high profile” failure. Backend PCs. 323 and SIP scenarios. Need to get SIP
H.323, SIP, and Microsoft
What is Microsoft doing with SIP? According to Todd Needham, they are just now
getting into VoIP activities (not involved earlier in H.323 efforts). A Microsoft RFP for
SIP projects by grad students may be announced this year. Microsoft is working closely
Internet2 VoIP Working Group May 6, 2002 Meeting Summary Page 2
with Cisco and Juniper. How can Microsoft support the VoIP WG initiatives? Send
email to ToddN@microsoft.com (http://research.microsoft.com). Microsoft Windows
messenger is SIP client under XP. (NetMeeting is H.323.)
Egon Verharen—H.323 not dead yet. H.323 forum will be announced in Geneva next
week. The Internet2 VidMid WG is also working on SIP and H.323 solutions. Want to
set up SIP and H.323 testbeds. Putting SIP gateways in place.
Egon Verharen presentation: International Dialing Scheme and ViDeNet
(slides here: www.internet2.edu/voip address collaboration focused initially on video, but
moving more towards support VoIP. ViDe: globally-scaleable H.323 number/dial plan
and update plus inter-gatekeeper communication. How to set up hierarchy to go beyond
50 address limit. Directory of video-directories (e.g. Is there an MCU in Vienna?)
VidMid is working on middleware standards for video. International dialing scheme.
Tyler Johnson didn’t want to use telephone number schemes, because that meant working
with telco’s and purchasing blocks of numbers. So Vide implemented their own
numbering scheme, which is H.323-based. For example:
Numeric: EZ world gk-cc-org-clientno(suffix)
00 ITU cc local no.
”00” is already part of the international dialing scheme for most countries. Europe
building their own hierarchy next to VideNet. So Videnet/Europe hierarchies can dial
each other. Vendors such as Cisco and Radvision must be committed to operate
international gatekeepers and directories.
Global Tier dialing plan (Radvision gatekeepers, set up as redundant/sibling “on standby”
NASM working group. Welsh video network H.323 global dialing scheme (GDS)
VoIP testbed growing in Europe, VoIP WG also established in Europe.
Walt—redundant effort between US/Europe. We need to avoid duplicating efforts.
Egon—plug into each others gatekeepers and have instant interoperability.
What about using 100 numbers for area codes in US? ITU not still protecting “0” as
Walt—have VoIP representative to NASM and providing feedback to VoIP. Minimal
travel involved because most of it is videoconferencing. Walt will try to set in some
Set up 1.5 day meeting at either UNC or UAB to get gateways cooperating better. VoIP
members are welcome to attend (in person or virtually) also.
Internet2 VoIP Working Group May 6, 2002 Meeting Summary Page 3
Need tools for configuration. Put together a VoIP beacon (a la Multicast beacon). Use
for trouble-shooting and pinpointing problem sites. More important as we move into
hierarchical environment. Would group like to use this?
Mike—as network scales up we’ll need more monitoring. Like VoIP NOC for example.
We need some support as SIP ramps up. Is there enough gatekeeper activity to warrant a
NOC style facility?
Egon—If a beacon could show the status of the endpoints/gatekeepers a user is trying to
reach, this would be very useful. Monitoring tools will be more important as hierarchy
grows. Can we do measurement and analyze traffic? More functionality than just
pinging gatekeeper is needed.
Walt—could set up test as trying to set up a call and see if it fails at any point.
Eric Nielsen, Sylantro Systems – Described a product that provides detailed
measurements on both ends, includes addresses at both endpoints. Runs on PC. Does
E2E measurement. Information on network congestion is more critical (duplex
mismatch, jitter, etc.), not so much about packet loss. Could the VoIP WG get more
information on this tool?
Testing and Measurement issues
Ben Teitelbaum working with Internet2 Measurement Group. Don’t currently know how
much voice/H.323 video is out there on Abilene. Ben working with vendors to get a
better picture of actual traffic out there (e.g., better SIP monitoring).
Better than POTs audio conferencing—Ben’s pet interest. What distinguishes Internet2
applications from the rest of the internet? Broadcast quality audio. G722 Codec. Ben
looking at standards and codecs that could provide this (support 7 Khz audio).
Communication, Outreach, and Meetings
What is the best way to connect to the WG? Send email to the WG chairs Mike Enyeart
<email@example.com> and Walt Magnussen <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
Walt—Wants to set up monthly VoIP WG calls using 7 Khz technology.
VoIP Workshop—Had VoIP workshop in Texas last month. Covered H.323, SIP, and
end user support issues. Would like to continue workshops, might change format. Need
to promote more extensively in advance for future events. What would group like to do
next? Case studies should be emphasized, more helpful than presentations. Notes from
workshop: http://academy.tamu.edu/voip .
Internet2 VoIP Working Group May 6, 2002 Meeting Summary Page 4
Case studies would be useful, compare/contrast what worked and what didn’t. Get Voice
and Video gatekeeper folks together to avoid duplication of effort.
Provide more hands-on information, like how to configure gatekeeper? Fewer vendor
presentations. More advance notice, allow participants to express in advance what they
want out of a workshop and how they might participate.
Hold another workshop in fall? Indiana? October maybe? Combine with Internet2
Member meeting in late October? (October 27-30 in Los Angeles.) This would work
well for International attendees.
Most VoIP members are operational as opposed to administrative (some both).
TAMU—Provides a VoIP test lab, members are welcome to use it. Separate from
production system. 6-7 different vendor systems there. Good opportunity to test
White papers—goal: push VoIP throughout Internet2 community. This has lagged
behind. Any volunteers to push this along? What topics should white papers address?
TAMU has telecom degree program, so we could utilize this resource and assign students
to research project.
Egon—create best current practice doc describing how to set up gatekeeper and connect
to testbed. Simple cookbook style describing existing technology would be adequate.
One about circumventing firewalls on the net would also be useful.
Provide instructions on how to work through your data network to avoid jitter, noise,
packet loss (from Tyler’s presentation). According to Tyler, “If you put voice over your
data network, this will result in a better data network.” Providing H.323 on TAMU
campus has lead to re-networking. Voice protocols uncover problems and weaknesses on
network and result in a better data implementation.
Another topic: share lessons learned. Provide incentives for business case: not that VoIP
is cheaper, rather it improves productivity. Costs are always dropping and equipment
getting cheaper. Explain the value of VoIP over traditional phone services.
Leverage liaisons with other groups, e.g. ACUTA. Regulatory issues are covered in
ViDeNet, EDUCAUSE already covered by VoIP representatives.
European VoIP working group (Egon liaison?). Overlap with other Internet2 WGs (QoS,
Ways to get additional participation in WG? Meets in person 1-2 a year.
Internet2 VoIP Working Group May 6, 2002 Meeting Summary Page 5
Improve/leverage vendor relations and carrier coordination. Identify WG members to
represent these areas.
Get more participation in WG and testbed.
Challenge to make business case for VoIP on campus.
Some locations have all the hardware, but need assistance in getting all pieces operational.
Need to minimize work flow process end of setting up VoIP services.
Providing 911 services for “soft” or “mobile” phones.
We need to avoid duplicating efforts (e.g. VoIP testbed in Europe).
Improve/leverage vendor relations and carrier coordination.
Preventing “high profile” failures.
VoIP WG has grad student assistance through the end of the summer.
VoIP test lab at TAMU, members are welcome to use it. Separate from production
system. 6-7 different vendor systems there. Good opportunity to test interoperability.
Cisco IP Telephony program discount package
Identify WG members to represent Internet2 community interests to vendors.
Identify VoIP representative to NASM and ViDe (Scott Baily, Colorado State,
volunteered to do this???).
Leverage liaisons with other groups, e.g. ACUTA.
Set up 1.5 day meeting at either UNC or UAB to get voice and video gateway experts
Create configuration tools (e.g., a VoIP beacon along the lines of the Multicast beacon).
Set up monthly VoIP WG alls using 7 Khz technology.
Identify topics for case studies, compare/contrast what worked and what didn’t.
Write VoIP white paper to push VoIP throughout Internet2 community.
Share lessons learned. Provide incentives for business case.
Create best current practice doc describing how to set up gatekeeper and connect to
testbed. Simple cookbook style describing existing technology.
Internet2 VoIP Working Group May 6, 2002 Meeting Summary Page 6