Subject: [PWE3] TDMPW and MeGaCo/SDP

From: Javi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:13:25 +0100

Assuming the next situation:

ISDN Terminal 1  -   MG1 -  [IP network] -  MG2   -   ISDN Terminal 2

where the MGs (Media Gateway) are controlled by a MGC (Media Gateway 
Controller) via MeGaCo[H.248.1].

[ITU-T Y.2262 / Annex IV] proposses that MGs may transport ISDN 
B-channels over the IP network:

+ By a single RTP session (when monochannels ISDN services)

+ Or by TDMoIP (= UDP TDMPWs), when multichannels ISDN services.

How may MGC indicate to the MG that it uses PWs at the IP termination?

It may be done by MeGaCo, using SDP[RFC4566] at Local/Remote 
descriptors. However, how may be that SDP description of TDMPWs?

Thanks,

Javier Muñoz

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 09:31:08 +0000

That is outside the scope of the PW.

The NSP (specifically excluded from the domain of the PW) would need to 
handle that.

Stewart

On 29/01/2011 01:13, Javi wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: Javi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:09:45 +0100

Possible, but it is necessary to define it.

No working group, as mmusic, plans to define it in collaboration with PWE3?

Normally, each transport proposal includes SDP extensions it needs. For 
instance:

+ IETF RFC4733 (RTP Payload for tones): codecs "telephone-event" 
(a=rtpmap:100 telephone-event/8000) and "tone" (a=rtpmap:101 tone/8000)
+ IETF RFC4734 (Events for Modem signals): codes (a=fmtp:101 
0-15,32-41,43,46,48-49,52-68)
+ ITU-T V.152 (VBDoIP): clausule 7.1 (attribute "a=gpmd")
+ ITU-T T.38: Annex D and E (protocol "udptl" and "tcptl")
+ ITU-T V.150.1: Annex E (attribute and codec "a=sprtmap:<PT_dinámico> 
v150mr/8000")
+ ITU-T V.151: Annex C (codec T.140: "a=rtpmap:<PT_dinámico> t140c/8000")
...

So, I think it would be logical that the SDP extensions needed to 
describe PWs weredone by a PW document.

Thanks

Javier Muñoz

El 29/01/2011 10:31, Stewart Bryant escribió:
> The NSP (specifically excluded from the domain of the PW) would need 
> to handle that.
>
> Stewart
>