1 / 17

Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses - Internet2 RTC Advisory Group

Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses - Internet2 RTC Advisory Group. Denis Baron Tyler Johnson Walt Magnussen April 25, 2006. Disclaimer.

premala
Télécharger la présentation

Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses - Internet2 RTC Advisory Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses- Internet2 RTC Advisory Group Denis Baron Tyler Johnson Walt Magnussen April 25, 2006

  2. Disclaimer RTC-AG work is not complete. This presentation represents discussions and directions within the group, but does not yet represent official RTC-AG or Internet2 positions. Draft recommendations have been submitted to the Application Strategy Counsel and conclusions will be submitted after member feedback from this meeting. Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited, your mileage may vary, not available in all states.

  3. Dennis Baron, MIT Markus Buchhorn, ANU Ben Chinowsky (Scribe), Internet2 Tammy Closs, Duke University   Phillipe Galvez, CalTech Jill Gemmill, University of Alabama at Birmingham Gwen Jacobs, Montana State University Tyler Johnson (Chair), University of North Carolina Ivan Judson, Argonne National Laboratory Deke Kassabian, Upenn Stephen Kingham, AARNet Walt Magnussen, Texas A&M Steve Smith, University of Alaska Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2 Mary Trauner, Georgia Tech Jonathan Tyman (Flywheel), Internet2 Egon Verharen, SurfNet Roger Will, Ford Motor Company Garret Yoshimi, University of Hawaii Membership

  4. Charter - Deliverables • A technology/application architecture with a roadmap of what is available today and what is visible on the horizon, including identification of key standards that are necessary for interoperability of real time communications applications; • Recommendations for production, Internet2-wide and beyond, implementations of RTC tools and applications that integrate with work on middleware and include end-to-end diagnostics and support mechanisms; • A guide to RTC applications that will help members understand which of the applications or approaches may best fit their needs and information on how to best deploy them for different purposes in our community; • A recommendation on how best to align the production service, research and development activities now going on within Internet2. The result should be an alignment of working groups and a set of prioritized activities

  5. Call Signaling H.323 SIP Addressing URI based with E.164 support Reference Architecture Components ID Management & Directory Services H.350 Authentication Shared Secret  SAML Finding People & Services Data Collaboration Tools Multipoint Conferencing H.350 Directories  Presence  ? H.239  ? H.323  SIP Presence & Location Services DoS Prevention Accounting 0  Simple? ? Tie in to IDM Firewall / NAT Traversal Baseline Functionality SPAM Prevention ?  ? Audio / Video / IM / Data ?  Inter-ream authentication Encryption & Privacy Physical Networks H.323  SIP Wired & Wireless

  6. Deployment Goals • Massive deployment • Part of campus expectations? • Implements reference architecture • Standardized external campus interfaces • To talk to any campus, use these well documented interfaces • Standardized internal components • Allow flexible internal deployment, but expect that campuses will be similar and will draw from the same tool sets and best practices

  7. RTC Priorities: Operational • Sharing of deployment experiences related to the reference architecture • Promoting deployment of reference architectures • Enabling very large scale RTC network availability • Facilitating campus interoperability • Creating a market for Corporate Member Work Products • Publishing and Outreach

  8. RTC Priorities: Research and Development • Security and Identity Management • Location Services • Disaster Recover • Next Generation Protocols • Mobility

  9. Deprecated Activities • Numeric Addressing • This is controversial with competing needs. Wait and see. • Sharing of Trunks and Gateways for Toll Bypass • Simply an operational issue. Not strategic • DO support this for disaster recovery

  10. Background: Problems • Overlapping Activities and Mixed Messages to the Membership • Addressing • 911 and Presence • Directory Services • Varying degrees of WG activity from dormant to hyper • Confusion of Message to Corporate Members • RTC emerging as a critical application

  11. Creation of a Standing RTC Steering Committeea la MACE • Manage the creation, development and closure of RTC working groups. • Support the harmonization of technical activities across the various RTC working groups to promote consistency of direction and re-use of work products. • Facilitate communication among the various RTC working groups to ensure that diverse perspectives are well understood within the more narrow activities of specific RTC working groups. • Advise Internet2 with regard to resource allocation for RTC-related activities and projects. • Maintain an overarching architectural vision for RTC that is inclusive of the breadth of RTC-related activities, addresses near term needs of the membership, and promotes an aggressive and forward looking vision of the RTC application space. • Promote Internet2 RTC activities within the membership and to the public. • Act as a focal point for communications with Corporate Members, vendors and the development community in order to maintain a consistent message about development direction.

  12. Working Group Alignment Recommendations • Presence and Instant Communications (PIC) • Keep • Voice Over IP Working Group (VoIP-WG) • Change to RTP-VoIP-SIG • RTC Middleware Working Group • New working group • Data Collaboration Working Group • New working group • SIP.edu • Migrate into established new structure and expand • I2 Instant Messaging (I2IM) • Close. Move to PIC • Video Middleware (VidMid-VC) • Close. Move to RTC-Middleware • ITEC • Under discussion • Commons (not a working group) • Continue and expand to complement RTC

  13. SIP.edu VoIP-WG I2IM VidMid-VC Working Group Structure Communications - Internet2 - Membership - Developers RTC-SC Common Reference Architecture RTC- VoIP-SIG RTC- PIC RTC- Middleware RTC- DataCollab

  14. RTC-DataCollab • Problems • Few Standards Exist • Campus Investment in Data Collaboration Tools is Very High • Content Lock • New WG: RTC-DataCollab • Seed / matching funding from Internet2 • Matching funding from participants (skin) • Call for participation to CIO and technologists key to potential success and buy in • Caution: History of entropic efforts. Proceed with commitment, else wait.

  15. Discussion • How best to expand SIP.edu to: • Massive deployment? • Media rich environment, not VoIP? • Include more components of the reference architecture?

  16. Discussion • What should be the scope and mission for RTC-DataCollab?

More Related