real time communications strategies for internet2 campuses internet2 rtc advisory group n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses - Internet2 RTC Advisory Group PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Real Time Communications Strategies For Internet2 Campuses - Internet2 RTC Advisory Group

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

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

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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


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.

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

charter deliverables
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
reference architecture components

Call Signaling

H.323 SIP


URI based with E.164 support

Reference Architecture Components

ID Management & Directory Services



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


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

deployment goals
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
rtc priorities operational
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
rtc priorities research and development
RTC Priorities: Research and Development
  • Security and Identity Management
  • Location Services
  • Disaster Recover
  • Next Generation Protocols
  • Mobility
deprecated activities
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
background problems
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
creation of a standing rtc steering committee a la mace
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.
working group alignment recommendations
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
    • 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
working group structure




Working Group Structure


- Internet2

- Membership

- Developers


Common Reference Architecture









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.
  • How best to expand to:
    • Massive deployment?
    • Media rich environment, not VoIP?
    • Include more components of the reference architecture?
  • What should be the scope and mission for RTC-DataCollab?