VoIP Working Group
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

VoIP Working Group

on

  • 405 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
405
Views on SlideShare
405
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

VoIP Working Group VoIP Working Group Document Transcript

  • 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? Testbed Status 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. Group Discussion What is required to get more people connected to the testbed? Some locations have all the hardware, but need assistance in getting all pieces operational. VoIP WG has grad student assistance through the end of the summer. Let’s utilize this resource. 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 numbering plan. 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 details. 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 initiatives going. 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” relationships). 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 area/country code. 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 meetings also. 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
  • Configuration Tools 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 <enyeart@indiana.edu> and Walt Magnussen <w-magnussen@tamu.edu>. 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 interoperability. 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 ACUTA. ViDeNet, EDUCAUSE already covered by VoIP representatives. European VoIP working group (Egon liaison?). Overlap with other Internet2 WGs (QoS, Testing, Measurement)? 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. Challenges: 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. Opportunities: 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 Action Items: 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 cooperating better. 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