I got this today.
>X-SMAP-Received-From: outside >From: "Tung, Tailey" <[email protected]> >To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, > "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, > "Tung; Tailey" <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] >Cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: E911 & Virtual PBX >Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:08:24 -0700 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) > >Phil, TR41.3.4 Chair > >You may be interested to read the following emails from John Comb of Cisco >expressing concerns of E911 compliance on internet or virtual PBX. > >As internet E911 caller location identification will involve I think at >least the following 4 areas: >1. Charging / billing and security. >2. Configurations and interfaces. >3. Call control procedures and information flow. >4. Naming & address translation issues. > >Do you have any plan or resources to include E911 compliance in your working >group for voice over IP products? > >Sincerely > >Tailey >TR41.1 Chair > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 7:49 AM >> To: Tung; Tailey; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: RE: E911 & Virtual PBX >> >> Tailey and all, >> >> Two comments to John's email: >> >> 1. The responsibility for compliance to the laws fall on the user of the >> premise. Any direct compulsory requirement on the manufacturer will come >> as a >> result of an FCC action that never seems to come. >> >> 2. The problem of location identity of an IP caller is, although >> technically >> different, not unlike the challenges of wireless location. In either case >> there >> is no finite terminal endpoint location fixed that can be reliably used >> for >> location, and the used can move about the facility without the system >> easily >> determining where they are now connected. Further, in both cases it is >> possible >> because of the standardization of the interfaces that the terminals are >> not of >> the same manufacturer as the controller. >> >> As I strongly suggested in the last TR41.1.9 meeting, the WG needs to >> define a >> set of parameters (i.e., how accurate does the location have to be) and >> request >> the relevant sub-committees (TR41.6 for wireless & TR41.3 for IP) to start >> a >> work item to meet these anticipated needs. >> >> Best Regards, >> Paul Weismantel >> NEC America, Inc. >> 1555 W. Walnut Hill Lane >> Irving, TX 75038 >> Tel: (972) 518-3834 >> Fax: (972) 518-4689 >> Mobile: (214) 244-7841 >> email: [email protected] >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Tung; Tailey" <[email protected]> at Internet >> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 4:11 PM >> To: Weismantel, Paul; Parker, Jim; [email protected] at Internet; >> [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; >> [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet >> Subject: RE: E911 & Virtual PBX >> >> >> Hi Tony & John, >> >> The virtual PBX or internet PBX etc.... mentioned by John is not new in >> Silicon Valley. What we need is input from the manufacturers of this type >> of products (such as Cisco / Selsius) who may already had solutions to >> resolve the E911 internet caller location problem to help TIA E911 working >> group to come up with the acceptable industry standard. >> >> John, >> >> Do you think you can provide input from Cisco / Selsius to TIA to start >> the >> drafting of E911 requirements for virtual PBX products? >> >> >> TR41.1 members, >> >> Please provide input to TR41.1.9 for Tony and his working group to study >> the >> possibility of writing E911 standard for virtual PBX or Voice over IP >> products. >> >> Sincerely >> >> Tailey >> TR41.1 Chair >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Caggiano, Anthony G (Tony) [SMTP:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 10:57 AM >> > To: Adams, Dan; Bal, Ajmer; Balinski, John; Berestecky, Chuck; >> Bishop, >> > Trone; Chaklashiya, Kumar; Chrostowski, Bob; Combs, John; Frank, Dick; >> > Green, John H.; Havens, Phillip; Lawler, Tim; Lockard, Dorothy; Mar, >> > Henry; Melton, Pete; Miyamoto, Yoshi; Needham, John; Panko, Richard; >> > Parker, Jim; Saleem, Christopher; Tung, Tailey; Weismantel, Paul J.; >> Wong, >> > Tony >> > Subject: E911 & Virtual PBX >> > >> > All, >> > Attached is email I received earlier this month from John Combs. >> > Please review it, especially the proposal concerning work items for our >> > Group, and we can discuss it at our next meeting. >> > Regards, Tony Caggiano >> > >> > > From: John Combs[SMTP:[email protected]] >> > > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 7:24 PM >> > > To: Caggiano, Anthony G (Tony) >> > > Subject: E911 & the Virtual PBX >> > > >> > > Tony, >> > > >> > > In terms of asking questions about E911 compliance here at Cisco, >> lately >> > > I've been the "squeaky wheel," and the result of that was that I was >> > told >> > > to "grease myself," i.e., do the research and make suggestions. <g> >> > > >> > > As I'm sure you're aware of, we're on the verge of a radical change in >> > PBX >> > > design, resulting in what I will refer to as a "virtual" PBX. For my >> > > purposes, a "conventional" PBX is a cabinet with a bunch of cards in >> it, >> > > and has trunks that connect to the PSTN, and lines that connect to >> > > stations. The Cisco/Selsius IP PBX is a good example of a "virtual" >> > PBX. >> > > The "heart" of the Selsius virtual PBX is a software package named >> Call >> > > Manager, which runs on a WinNT Server PC with an installed Ethernet >> > card. >> > > >> > > When a user makes a call from a Selsius IP telephone, it contacts the >> > Call >> > > Manager via Ethernet and gives the called party telephone number. The >> > > Call >> > > Manager looks up the called telephone number in a database, and >> replies >> > to >> > > the calling telephone with an IP address for the called number. At >> this >> > > point the Call Manager "bows out" and the calling telephone contacts >> the >> > > next device directly. >> > > >> > > Now, that IP number might be for another Selsius IP telephone on the >> > local >> > > network, then we simply have an Ethernet connection between the two >> > > phones. The IP number might be another Selsius IP telephone on a >> > remote >> > > network, then one or more routers will route the IP packets to the >> > called >> > > telephone. >> > > >> > > But if the called telephone number is on the PSTN, the Call Manger >> will >> > > reply to the calling IP telephone with an IP number that belongs to a >> > > "gateway" device. The gateway has an Ethernet port, as well as PSTN >> > > ports, >> > > such as voice T1, ISDN BRI or PRI, or even analog ports such as CO >> lines >> > > or >> > > E&M lines. The gateway does the PSTN connection for the IP telephone. >> > > Please note that the gateway doesn't have to be a Selsius product -- >> it >> > > could be a standard Cisco router, since nearly all of them now have >> > "voice >> > > module" options to connect to the PSTN. The gateway might even be a >> > > router >> > > from a different manufacturer. Just to further complicate things, the >> > > VoIP >> > > "telephone" could just as easily be a multimedia PC running Microsoft >> > > Netmeeting. >> > > >> > > So, there is a real possibility that the only part of this "virtual" >> PBX >> > > that would be provided by Cisco would be the Call Manager software -- >> no >> > > hardware whatsoever! >> > > >> > > Now, let's consider E911 compliance. I know from our earlier >> > conversation >> > > that Illinois has tried to target *hardware* for compliance with the >> > law, >> > > i.e., PBX's are targeted, but key systems are not. I also assume that >> > > most >> > > state laws are trying to enforce compliance by holding the PBX *owner* >> > > (not >> > > the manufacturer) responsible, I suppose with the assumption that >> > > businesses will simply refuse to buy non-compliant PBX hardware and >> thus >> > > drive the market in the correct direction. >> > > >> > > So, in the case of a virtual PBX, do you suppose that the law would >> > assume >> > > that the PBX is the "gateway" hardware that directly connects to the >> > PSTN? >> > > There is even a possibility that the gateway which connects to PSTN >> > lines >> > > could be located in a state other than Illinois! Or that the business >> > > doesn't even *own* a hardware gateway, and that they're sending their >> IP >> > > packets to a local ISP acting as a local telephone provider, and the >> > local >> > > ISP owns the hardware gateway that interfaces to the PSTN! In the >> > > situation where the ISP owns the hardware gateway, and the local >> > business >> > > owns the Call Manager software, who is responsible for E911 >> compliance, >> > > i.e., who "owns" the virtual PBX? >> > > >> > > So, in the case of the Ilinois law, if a business owned Call Manager >> and >> > > some VoIP telephones, but don't own their own hardware gateway to the >> > > PSTN, do you suppose that they are "exempt" from that E911 law, and >> the >> > responsibility for compliance is shifted to the owner of the gateway, >> > > perhaps an ISP? What about the Kentucky law which I think you said is >> > > based on a "dispersal" issue? >> > > >> > > As you can see, things get "ugly" very quickly when you start delving >> > into >> > > these issues. I know that Tailey Tung was talking about "disbanding" >> > your >> > > TR-41.1.9 subcommittee after finishing up the ISDN E911 issue, but I >> > think >> > > that it might make sense to instead immediately start working on a new >> > > project, perhaps called "E911 for Virtual PBXs." I think that some >> sort >> > > of >> > > interoperability guideline needs to be written so that manufacturers >> can >> > > ensure that a virtual PBX made up from hardware and software from >> > multiple >> > > manufacturers can handle an E911 call in some fashion. >> > > >> > > What do you think about all this? >> > > >> > > Oh, could you suggest a Web URL that might help me with determining >> what >> > > states currently have E911 laws, or are likely to soon adopt them? >> > > >> > > >> > > -------------------------------- >> > > John Combs >> > > Senior Telecom Engineer >> > > Corporate Compliance Department >> > > CISCO SYSTEMS >> > > Phone : +1 408 525-4910 >> > > Fax : +1 408 526-8348 >> > > Email : [email protected] >> > > 170 West Tasman Drive >> > > Mail Stop SJ-F/1 >> > > San Jose, CA 95134-1706 >> > > -------------------------------- >> > > >> > > >> > >
