Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses Internet2 RTC Advisory Group - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses Internet2 RTC Advisory Group PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: df42-MzBiY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses Internet2 RTC Advisory Group

Description:

Presence and Instant Communications (PIC) Keep. Voice Over IP Working Group (VoIP-WG) ... Move to PIC. Video Middleware (VidMid-VC) Close. Move to RTC ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:46
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 18
Provided by: tylerj3
Learn more at: http://web.mit.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses Internet2 RTC Advisory Group


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
Membership
  • 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 AM
  • 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

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
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
Working Group Structure
Communications - Internet2 - Membership -
Developers
RTC-SC
Common Reference Architecture
RTC- DataCollab
RTC- Middleware
RTC- PIC
RTC- VoIP-SIG
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?

17
(No Transcript)
About PowerShow.com