Subject: RE: [IPTEL] TRIP for gateways

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:52:34 -0800

At 02:20 AM 11/30/2000 -0500, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>Indeed, the fundamental question is push vs. pull.
>
>I think gateway routing needs to be push primarily for performance reasons.
>Calls arrive at a proxy server at potentially very high rates; if each call
>needs to generate an independent query for service, you end up (1) adding
>latency to each call setup for the query/response, (2) introducing a serious
>processing burden for all devices, (3) add a lot of network traffic for the
>queries and responses. By pushing the information as it changes, we
>eliminate the additional call setup latency, reduce the processing load, and
>reduce the messaging load.

You forgot to add the management aspect of push which could be a 
significant barrier in large and/or complex networks. I think we have to be 
able to pull and it is really the decision of the carrier architect. 
Hopefully we can somehow allow both methods for flexibility. I know that is 
not generally good for interoperability though.

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:41:19 -0600

>it is really the decision of the carrier architect

could not agree more :-)

The service provider should at least know where the border routers (or
gates) to other ISPs are and keep a real good eye on them if they want to
stay in business.

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Matt Holdrege
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:53 AM
To: Jonathan Rosenberg
Cc: 'James Kempf'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [IPTEL] TRIP for gateways