[VOIPSEC] 4G Issue Map: signaling complexity

[Bill Flanagan]

See responses in-line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:00:28 -0400 From: "Geoff Devine" 
> <gdevine at cedarpointcom.com> Subject: [VOIPSEC] Starting a 4G Issue 
> Map To: <Voipsec at voipsa.org> Message-ID: 
> <402F25FC1EB2BD44831F8A4A4F6DF94203A68C at MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
SNIP

> 
> Technical issues:
> 
> SIP: In my opinion, this protocol is proving to be a disaster.  If 
> you look at the work being done in the various standards bodies, it's
>  exploding in complexity.  Messages are now incredibly bloated.  You 
> have to support gigantic recursive history headers to detect and 
> prevent forwarding loops.  The notion of GRUU is being introduced to 
> cope with multiple devices sharing one public identity.  I'd prefer 
> to throw the whole mess away and start over using a suite of 
> type-length-value protocols and have everyone agree on a common 
> architecture.
To see what's about to happen, look at the history of ATM specifications
and interoperability agreements for ATM to the desktop, SMDS, etc.--a
stack of paper about 1 meter high that nobody could implement.  Compare 
that to the "1 fat binder" produced by the Frame Relay Forum, and the 
success of that technology in the market.  KISS!

ATM people were more closely aligned with the IETF than the FR people,
who tended to be closer to telcos (with some shared representatives).
SIP is a reinvention of SS7, using a verbose text-based syntax rather 
than the "bit setting" approach of the ITU.  However, the job to be done
(controlling calls) is unchanged, so the complexity is going to be
there, although my impression is that the IETF folks, not being familiar
with telephony internals, didn't fully appreciate that complexity.

What would work for me is a new group with telephony experience to
create a signaling protocol for IP networks, comparable to FR vs. ATM. 
The TLV approach makes sense.  Where would it's home be?

> 
> QoS: QoS is a business issue.  You can't just give it away or 
> everybody will always request the highest possible priority.  In 
> walled garden architectures like PacketCable and 3GPP, QoS works just
>  fine.  When you introduce unlicensed spectrum and access via the 
> public internet, we need to sort out the business issues to be able 
> to authorize and charge for QoS.  I view this as a business issue 
> rather than a technical issue since there are already several 
> possible technical solutions that would work.
> 
> SPAM: As long as your telephone identity is an E.164 number and 
> everyone uses trusted service providers, you don't get SPAM phone 
> calls.  As soon as you allow phone calls to a non-E.164 URI, you've 
> opened up a huge can of worms that we all know and love in our email 
> environnment.  Personally, I'll pay good money to ensure that my 
> phone doesn't get flooded with garbage calls from Nigeria.  I will 
> cancel service if this ever starts happening.  Somehow, I keep 
> hearing from IETF people that this is a _GOOD_ thing.  I don't see 
> it.
It's not clear to me why a spammer can't send to an E.164 address--I get 
such calls (and faxes) all the time.

> 
> Re-inventing the wheel: I have yet to see a feature I'd want that 
> can't be done already on legacy networks.  I remember seeing GSM, 
> PBX, Wireline, and DECT integration at Ericsson a decade ago.  1 
> phone number worked at home, at the office, and on your cell phone. 
> Somehow, all of this became brand-new again a decade later.
Agreed.

> Technology enabling disfunctional behavior: VideoPhone has been the 
> next big thing since Bell Labs demonstrated it in the 1960's.  It's 
> still not here yet and may never achieve market acceptance.  The one 
> big change we've seen is that cellular has taken over the world.  I'm
>  still not convinced that I'm willing to go blind watching
> microscopic videos on my cell phone but we all seem to accept that
> the Blackberry has replaced the pager as the most personally
> intrusive device in the known universe.  When they tried to give me a
> pager 15 years ago, I removed the battery and placed it safely in my
> desk drawer.  I threaten the same whenever they threaten to issue me
> a Blackberry. There's such a thing as being too connected.  I think
> all restaurants, movie theaters, concert halls, trains, buses,
> conference rooms, ... should be outfitted with radio scramblers so we
> can have civilized behavior again rather than listen to someone shout
> into their cell phone or ignore you when their blackberry rattles.
More than agreed  :-)

> 
> Geoff ------------------------------------------------------- I'd 
> like to invite the community discussion on the following:
> 
> 1) Mobile VoIP 2) Fixed Mobile Convergence 3) Triple and Quadruple 
> Play
> 
> Reply on something your curious or passionate about.
> 
> If possible, please post with comments on:
> 
> - top line issues - positioning in the technology stack: PHY, MAC, 
> media stream, control, etc. - your sense of significance of the issue
>  - grist for others to join you in comment as a thread

-- 

Bill Flanagan
____________________________________________
Flanagan Consulting     Ph:  +1.703.242.8381
45472 Holiday Dr. #3,   Fx:  +1.703.242.8391
Sterling, VA 20166 USA
www.flanagan-consulting.com
       "Experts in Converged Networking"

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
                                         --George Bernard Shaw