The Internet Protocol Detail Record Organization
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

The Internet Protocol Detail Record Organization






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • How many knew about IPDR prior to this presentation? How many have inspected web site and NDM-U?
  • Wifi _market_forecast2- ctia . pdf : Cable, cellular, and ISP industries took 15,19,33 years respectively to reach “mass” adoption by 25% of US population. Common factor preceding sharp inflection points in cable and ISP was the introduction of compelling applications. Two scenarios for public access growth are presented. The favorable scenario assumes industry cooperation for roaming users with one roaming standard and open network agreements. Scenario 1: 2006 3M subs and $684M revs Scenario 2: 760K subs and 174M revs By your analysis, how will the provisioning of seamless roaming and settlement affect the growth of WiFi? How will this ripple through to equipment sales figures? Would you rather bank on anarchy fueled by revenue sharing or a few big players to do a high capital investment rollout?
  • B and C are conceptual stream of IPDRs D is stream of IPDRDocs – MAIN FOCUS TO DATE A and E are current areas of work
  • Separation of concerns means that we use existing technology in every area.
  • Who are you betting will solve will solve interconnect WiFi roaming settlement? If not IPDR and WiFi Industry, who can deploy it in 2003?
  • Why wouldn’t this happen? No one company can define the technology. It requires industrial cooperation. Which service providers do you know of that will strongly support this?
  • What support are you willing to give to this effort? Which service providers come to mind as a good match who will benefit?

The Internet Protocol Detail Record Organization The Internet Protocol Detail Record Organization Presentation Transcript

  • IPDR & WiFi: Circumference AAAS: Unified A uthentication A uthorization, A ccounting, and S ettlement Prepay, Roaming, Settlement for Next-Generation Services Aron Heintz, President [email_address]
  • IPDR in a Nutshell
    • Nonprofit supported by 44 companies from North & South America, Europe, Asia.
      • Combined member market cap. > $100 Billion.
    • Mission: To reduce the time and cost of usage measurement and exchange for next-generation services.
    • Formed Q3 1999; final NDM-U specification issued Q4 2001
    • 2/3 of OSS/BSS vendors now IPDR Compliant
  • Crossroads for WiFi Roaming ~ Late 2004
    • “ Proprietary Roaming ”: Two or three major service providers each offer their proprietary WiFi roaming infrastructure and billing models. Hotspot providers must align with one or the other; cross-network roaming is incompatible.
    • “ Universal Roaming ”: All parties have converged on a roaming AAAS standard . Universal WiFi roaming is taken for granted, including a variety of pricing/payment models.
  • WiFi Home Adoption – now 13%
  • Roam Adoption depends on Public Access Growth
    • Key determinant: number of accessible hotspots
      • Previous examples of “island technology” failures: 1G cellular roaming, 3G applications, Macintosh OS…
    • “ Proprietary roaming”: ~ 2x Growth Curve
      • Road warriors will pick their two favorite providers; Many home users won’t roam.
      • Many venues won’t bother becoming access points
    • “ Circumference roaming”: ~ 4x Growth
      • Revenue to Home/Restaurant LAN providers inspires rapid hotspot proliferation
      • Enterprise and road warrior “killer applications” emerge using pervasive WLAN.
      • Rationale for 2.5G/3G/WLAN roaming becomes convincing
  • Sounds nice, how? Proven technology already on hand…
  • WiFi Circumference Example Other configurations support bilateral and non-proxied multilateral
  • NDM-U Reference Model - Interfaces
    • A – Unspecified in NDM-U, typically proprietary to SE, mediated by IR
    • B – Stream of IPDRs, flowing to either IT, IS, or both
    • C – Stream of IPDRDocs
    • D – Groups of IPDRDocs, accessed either via file-based transport or as transactions in an online protocol
    • E – Groups of IPDRDocs, modified by the application of business rules
    Mediation System
  • Radius & Diameter Accounting Shortcomings
    • Fragmented, inefficient Accounting transfers
      • Request-reply “pulse” of messages only
    • No support for batches
      • How do you describe what happened later on?
    • Unspecified message contents
      • Vendor Specific Attributes are where most of the important accounting data is!
      • Nonstandardized extensions – most vendor makes up their own
  • Radius & Diameter plus: NDM-U Accounting
    • NDM-U offers an industry-standard log format for accounting data.
      • Delivers a batch-oriented extension for AAAccounting
      • Majority of billing and settlement players are already compliant
      • XML flavor read/writeable by any software vendor
      • Binary encoding for high-performance apps
    • “ Service Specifications” - Detail record definition language fully supports VSAs
    • EZ upgrade for Radius vendors -- Less than 2 weeks of work with IPDR source code.
  • The Model Driven IPDR Approach Service Data Encoding Service Data Transport
    • Service Definition
    • (Subset of W3C XML-Schema 1.0)
    • Alternative Encodings :
    • XML Document
    • XDR based binary encoding
    • Others (e.g. RADIUS, Diameter AVP)
    • Alternative Transports :
    • File based exchange (of XML or XDR)
    • Streaming (XDR only)
    • Others (e.g. RADIUS UDP, Diameter TCP/SCTP)
    Service Definition Service Definition Information Model
  • Standards-based Settlement
    • Many application-specific protocols exist: TAP, EMI, OSP, BAF, CIBER, etc. Application: Voice
      • TAP3, MXP may offer workable solutions, but aren’t widely deployed.
    • The attributes of NDM-U 3.1.1 accounting capabilities are directly applicable to IP roaming settlement:
      • tools for moving accounting and performance data; flow of this information is basically unidirectional .
      • Adequately and efficiently addresses post pay for a transaction that has already been authorized and completed
      • Permits Radius/Diameter accounting post-hoc exchange with minimal development effort
  • Sounds nice, who? A win-win coalition of leading players…
  • IPDR and WiFi roaming: Sensible win-win-win
    • WiFi SP’s and Vendors : Bigger overall market. Customers respond to overall number of accessible hotspots. Seamless roaming is a key adoption driver.
    • Settlement Providers : Increase settlement revenues with increased user base.
    • Radius Vendors : Encourage Radius proliferation. “Settlement upgrade” revenues from existing customers.
    • Hotspots : Appeal to 100% of potential users instead of betting on one horse.
    • OSS/BSS players : recoup investment in NDM-U development and support by avoiding redevelopment costs of WiFi proprietary billing approaches.
  • The WiFi Circumference Team
    • Settlement providers : Top names already involved include: Billing Concepts, TSI, Telus Settlement, Cibernet, Verisign
    • WiFi equipment vendors : Intel joining, Cisco represents significant market share. Liaison forming with WiFi Alliance.
    • Radius vendors : Cisco, Funk, and Interlink confirmed.
    • WiFi service providers : Sprint PCS, Telus, Infonet, GRIC confirmed, Recent invitations sent to iPass, Telia, Microsoft, T-mobile, AT&T Mobile, Pass-One, Verizon Wireless.
    • Billing/mediation vendors : (G) 75% of the market is represented in IPDR and majority offer packages compliant with the NDM-U standard.
  • Timeline
    • April 3-4 WiFi Circumference kick-off meeting
    • Target June 24 – Announcement in concurrent Billing and WiFi shows
  • Questions for Apr 3-4
    • Is everyone convinced that the Radius/IPDR/settlement technology proposed can be defined and deployed in 2003?
    • Who is going to pitch in to prioritize and put the finish on these specifications and use-cases?
    • Sanity check: Is this really the most likely path to open market adoption? Review other options.
    • How will we manage branding for the WiFi Circumference consortium? How do WiFi Alliance or other allies fit into it?
    • Will the new group be organized as:
      • An IPDR Working Group
      • A new IPDR Working Group and Member Class
      • A new organization
    • A working group chair and other volunteer roles needed. Who will make what resource commitments?
    • How will we use IPDR source code to support this effort?