[VOIPSEC] 4G Issue Map: signaling complexity

Tue Aug 22 23:29:58 BST 2006

SIP is good and still I don't feel to leave the baby.

I read long time back bath tub curve (Defects/Problems on the Y axis,
and time on the X axis) in the evaluation of new technologies, though it
was more meaningful for electro-mechanical components. I feel we will be
nearing the last upward line of difficult problems to be fixed (if we
are not careful in picking right priorities), where new technologies
come into the picture. 

There are lot of pitfalls in SIP (Retargeting , SIPS, Forking with early
media etc). Which some on the SIP list feel to be fixed in SIP 3.0 .
Still there will dual mode stacks / network where we will not be able to
get rid of this. We would have avoided SIPS in the last meeting atleast.

I feel, now we are witnessing the tough problems to be fixed in the
framework of SIP. Most of the difficult ones e.g. early media with
forking etc came from the replicating the PSTN. We should have
replicated the PSTN in the right way. PSTN was secure and then features
of IN etc came. We didn't design the SIP from the ground-up security. If
SIP/VoIP has been deployable secure, we would not have been bothering
much interworking with PSTN etc. If you see complete IP coming up, then
IPDC, MGCP etc will be waste. In the days of infancy, it was fine to
inter-work with PSTN. I like security getting considered from the start
in P2P SIP. Lack of security made SIP's wide adoption slow and within
the islands, and we end up inter-working, mimicking PSTN endlessly.  

Whenever you try to make a new protocol for telecom, it's like boiling
the ocean :-)

These are my personal opinions and doesn't reflect my employer's
opinions in any way.

Thx
Samir

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org [mailto:Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org]
On
> Behalf Of Henry Sinnreich
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:00 AM
> To: bill at flanagan-consulting.com; Voipsec at voipsa.org
> Subject: Re: [VOIPSEC] 4G Issue Map: signaling complexity
> 
> There is a lot of truth in deploring the present complexity of SIP
which
> is documented at http://rfc3261.net/
> 
> Don't confuse however core SIP in RFC 3261 with all the uses carriers
> and equipment vendors want to put it to, see for example the Cable
Labs
> DCS, IMS and TISPAN, besides the VoIP infrastructure industry
> (Softswitch, Class 5 emulation, SS7 replacement, etc.) who have not
seen
> a new extension they don't like.
> 
> This has however nothing to do with SIP: Any protocol meant to
replicate
> the telephone system will have the same complexity or worse. Don't
> forget the sacred walled gardens of the mobile networks and the desire
> to control and measure every packet of yours, to block and de-QoS
> competing services, to send your phone call through peer VoIP networks
> you never needed, etc.
> 
> Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, just throw out the
> telephony legacy and start looking at voice as an application in the
> endpoints, like Skype does.
> 
> I don't work for Skype and these are my personal opinions.
> 
> SIP is good.
> 
> Thanks, Henry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org [mailto:Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bill Flanagan
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: Voipsec at voipsa.org
> Subject: Re: [VOIPSEC] 4G Issue Map: signaling complexity
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Voipsec mailing list
> Voipsec at voipsa.org
> http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Voipsec mailing list
> Voipsec at voipsa.org
> http://voipsa.org/mailman/listinfo/voipsec_voipsa.org